This research compares the effectiveness of LLMs on health literacy via various evaluation metrics, highlighting performance differences.
This study investigated the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) for simplifying biomedical texts to enhance health literacy. Using a public dataset, which included plain language adaptations of biomedical abstracts, we developed and evaluated several approaches, specifically a baseline approach using a prompt template, a two AI agent approach, and a fine-tuning approach. We selected OpenAI gpt-4o and gpt-4o mini models as baselines for further research. We evaluated our approaches with quantitative metrics, such as Flesch-Kincaid grade level, SMOG Index, SARI, and BERTScore, G-Eval, as well as with qualitative metric, more precisely 5-point Likert scales for simplicity, accuracy, completeness, brevity. Results showed a superior performance of gpt-4o-mini and an underperformance of FT approaches. G-Eval, a LLM based quantitative metric, showed promising results, ranking the approaches similarly as the qualitative metric.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kocbek et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: