Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40489773›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Improving Patient Communication by Simplifying AI-Generated Dental Radiology Reports With ChatGPT: Comparative Study.

Daniel Stephan, Annika S Bertsch, Sophia Schumacher, Behrus Puladi, Matthias Burwinkel, Bilal Al-Nawas, Peer W Kämmerer, Daniel Ge Thiem

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07140107 (Patients' Perceptions and Comprehension of Original Versus AI-Generated Plain Language Summaries of Cochrane Oncology Systematic Reviews), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07140107 naenrolling by invitationnot on this map

Patients' Perceptions and Comprehension of Original Versus AI-Generated Plain Language Summaries of Cochrane Oncology Systematic Reviews

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Split, School of MedicineRan2025 to 2026Enrolled130ConditionsNon-Metastatic Breast CancerArmsAI-generated PLS, Original PLS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Daniel StephanDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Facial Plastic Surgery, University Medical Centre, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2480-1231
Annika S BertschDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Facial Plastic Surgery, University Medical Centre, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4159-7745
Sophia SchumacherDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Facial Plastic Surgery, University Medical Centre, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6312-9496
Behrus PuladiDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5909-6105
Matthias BurwinkelDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Facial Plastic Surgery, University Medical Centre, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1780-4796
Bilal Al-NawasDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Facial Plastic Surgery, University Medical Centre, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8665-5803
Peer W KämmererDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Facial Plastic Surgery, University Medical Centre, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1671-3764
Daniel Ge ThiemDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Facial Plastic Surgery, University Medical Centre, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4081-1487

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical reports, particularly radiology findings, are often written for professional communication, making them difficult for patients to understand. This communication barrier can reduce patient engagement and lead to misinterpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI), especially large language models such as ChatGPT, offers new opportunities for simplifying medical documentation to improve patient comprehension.

objectiveWe aimed to evaluate whether AI-generated radiology reports simplified by ChatGPT improve patient understanding, readability, and communication quality compared to original AI-generated reports.

methodsIn total, 3 versions of radiology reports were created using ChatGPT: an original AI-generated version (text 1), a patient-friendly, simplified version (text 2), and a further simplified and accessibility-optimized version (text 3). A total of 300 patients (n=100, 33.3% per group), excluding patients with medical education, were randomly assigned to review one text version and complete a standardized questionnaire. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score and LIX indices.

resultsBoth simplified texts showed significantly higher readability scores (text 1: FRE score=51.1; text 2: FRE score=55.0; and text 3: FRE score=56.4; P<.001) and lower LIX scores, indicating enhanced clarity. Text 3 had the shortest sentences, had the fewest long words, and scored best on all patient-rated dimensions. Questionnaire results revealed significantly higher ratings for texts 2 and 3 across clarity (P<.001), tone (P<.001), structure, and patient engagement. For example, patients rated the ability to understand findings without help highest for text 3 (mean 1.5, SD 0.7) and lowest for text 1 (mean 3.1, SD 1.4). Both simplified texts significantly improved patients' ability to prepare for clinical conversations and promoted shared decision-making.

conclusionsAI-generated simplification of radiology reports significantly enhances patient comprehension and engagement. These findings highlight the potential of ChatGPT as a tool to improve patient-centered communication. While promising, future research should focus on ensuring clinical accuracy and exploring applications across diverse patient populations to support equitable and effective integration of AI in health care communication.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCommunicationAdultComprehensionFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesclinical communicationhealth literacymedical accessibilitynatural language processingpatient-centered carepatient comprehensionradiology report

Identifiers

PMID40489773
PMCPMC12186002

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.