Evaluating ChatGPT’s ability to simplify scientific abstracts for clinicians and the public

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorDoğru Hüzmeli, Esra
dc.contributor.authorMoore-Vasram, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorPhadke, Chetan
dc.contributor.authorShafiee, Erfan
dc.contributor.authorAmanullah, Shabbir
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-20T06:43:02Z
dc.date.available2025-10-20T06:43:02Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.departmentFakülteler, Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi, Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Bölümü
dc.description.abstractThis study evaluated ChatGPT’s ability to simplify scientific abstracts for both public and clinician use. Ten questions were developed to assess ChatGPT’s ability to simplify scientific abstracts and improve their readability for both the public and clinicians. These questions were applied to 43 abstracts. The abstracts were selected through a convenience sample from Google Scholar by four interdisciplinary reviewers from physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and nursing backgrounds. Each abstract was summarized by ChatGPT on two separate occasions. These summaries were then reviewed independently by two different reviewers. Flesch Reading Ease scores were calculated for each summary and original abstract. A subgroup analysis explored differences in accuracy, clarity, and consistency across various study designs. ChatGPT’s summaries scored higher on the Flesch Reading Ease test than the original abstracts in 31 out of 43 papers, showing a significant improvement in readability (p = 0.005). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses consistently received higher scores for accuracy, clarity, and consistency, while clinical trials scored lower across these parameters. Despite its strengths, ChatGPT showed limitations in “Hallucination presence” and “Technical terms usage,” scoring below 7 out of 10. Hallucination rates varied by study type, with case reports having the lowest scores. Reviewer agreement across parameters demonstrated consistency in evaluations. ChatGPT shows promise for translating knowledge in clinical settings, helping to make scientific research more accessible to non-experts. However, its tendency toward hallucinations and technical jargon requires careful review by clinicians, patients, and caregivers. Further research is needed to assess its reliability and safety for broader use in healthcare communication.
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/s41598-025-11086-8
dc.identifier.issn2045-2322
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.pmid41022954
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105017650419
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-11086-8
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11501/2465
dc.identifier.volume15
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001586165500028
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.institutionauthorDoğru Hüzmeli, Esra
dc.institutionauthorid0000-0002-7025-8192
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherNature Research
dc.relation.ispartofScientific Reports
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectChatGPT
dc.subjectFlesch Reading Ease Score
dc.subjectHallucination Presence
dc.subjectHealthcare Dissemination
dc.subjectTechnical Terms
dc.titleEvaluating ChatGPT’s ability to simplify scientific abstracts for clinicians and the public
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Orijinal paket
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Küçük Resim
İsim:
Tam Metin / Full Text
Boyut:
1.95 MB
Biçim:
Adobe Portable Document Format
İndir
Lisans paketi
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Kapalı Erişim
İsim:
license.txt
Boyut:
1.17 KB
Biçim:
Item-specific license agreed to upon submission
Açıklama:
İndir

Koleksiyon

Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu