Validation of an AI-powered mobile application for personalizing medical note explanations
Lamb, N.
Show abstract
Almost half of adults struggle to understand written health information, making medical communication a critical barrier to patient care. While AI shows promise for improving health communication, few tools have been rigorously validated for personalizing medical explanations. I developed Patiently AI, a mobile application that uses large language models to simplify medical notes with audience-specific adaptations (child, teenager, adult, carer) and tone variations (friendly, informative, reassuring). Our three-phase validation comprised: computational analysis of readability improvements across 210 AI-generated outputs using established metrics; expert evaluation by 15 healthcare professionals assessing clinical accuracy, safety, and communication quality; and patient survey of 54 participants evaluating preferences, comprehension, and acceptance. AI-generated explanations showed significant readability improvements: mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level decreased by 2.96 levels (10.57[->]7.61), Flesch Reading Ease increased by 31.9 points (37.7[->]69.6), and Gunning Fog Index decreased by 4.09 points (14.5[->]10.4). Improvements were greatest for younger audiences (child: 4.25 grade level reduction vs. adult: 1.80). Expert evaluation rated AI outputs highly for medical accuracy (4.49{+/-}0.51/5), clarity (4.53{+/-}0.50/5), and trustworthiness (4.37{+/-}0.58/5), with 87.3% deemed clinically safe. Patient evaluation showed strong acceptance: 70.0% preferred AI-generated explanations, with high ratings for clarity (4.58{+/-}0.52/5) and confidence in care (4.19{+/-}0.65/5). 70.4% of patients indicated likelihood to use the application. This study provides robust evidence that AI can safely and effectively personalize medical communication while maintaining clinical accuracy. The validated Patiently AI application represents a scalable solution for improving health literacy and patient engagement across diverse populations.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 95%
- A typology of physician input approaches to using AI chatbots for clinical decision-making: a mixed methods study 95%
- Utilization of Generative AI-drafted Responses for Managing Patient-Provider Communication 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- User Testing of a Diagnostic Decision Support System with Machine-assisted Chart Review to Facilitate Clinical Genomic Diagnosis 94%
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 94%
- AI-Generated Clinical Summaries: Errors and Susceptibility to Speech and Speaker Variability 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating Anti-LGBTQIA+ Medical Bias in Large Language Models 94%
- Theory of radiologist interaction with instant messaging decision support tools: a sequential-explanatory study 94%
- Development and preliminary testing of Health Equity Across the AI Lifecycle (HEAAL): A framework for healthcare delivery organizations to mitigate the risk of AI solutions worsening health inequities 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- A digital self-care intervention for Ugandan patients with heart failure and their clinicians: User-centred design and usability study 94%
- Validating a Clinical Decision Support System for Palliative Care using healthcare professionals’ insights 94%
- How suitable are clinical vignettes for the evaluation of symptom checker apps? A test theoretical perspective 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.