ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
The Impact of Specific Prompt Engineering Techniques on the Readability of LLM-Generated Patient Materials in Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsHealth literacy significantly impacts patient outcomes. While the average American reads at an 8th grade reading level, healthcare materials are often written above this, potentially contributing to our nation's health literacy gap. Large language models (LLM) and prompt engineering may be able to help address this gap by consistently generating materials at the recommended 6th grade reading level. Our study aims to assess how different prompting techniques affect the readability of LLM-generated materials.
methodsWe assessed the effects of five prompt techniques (Zero-Shot, Contextualized, Constrained, Meta, Persona) on the readability of LLM-generated explanations for fifteen common gastroenterology and hepatology conditions across twelve LLMs. Output (n = 2655) readability was assessed with two readability metrics (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL)), followed by significance testing and post-hoc analysis.
resultsNo prompt technique or model consistently produced outputs at or below a 6th grade reading level when assessed by the SMOG index, the preferred metric when assessing healthcare materials (p < 0.001). However, prompts with less constraints yield less readable outputs, while prompts with more constraints yield significantly more readable outputs (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the potential of LLMs as a tool in addressing America's health literacy gap, as we show prompt engineering affects the readability of gastroenterology and hepatology-related explanations. We also found limitations to this technique. Further optimization is necessary before LLMs can consistently generate patient materials without appropriate clinician oversight, but it implies prompt engineering as a tool in addressing our nation's health literacy gap.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.