Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Impact of Large Language Model Assistance on Patients Reading Clinical Notes: A Mixed-Methods Study

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.09637 v2 pith:3ECS3VRE submitted 2024-01-17 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CL

Impact of Large Language Model Assistance on Patients Reading Clinical Notes: A Mixed-Methods Study

classification cs.HC cs.AIcs.CL
keywords notesclinicalpatientsaugmentationstoolbreastcancerhistory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have immense potential to make information more accessible, particularly in medicine, where complex medical jargon can hinder patient comprehension of clinical notes. We developed a patient-facing tool using LLMs to make clinical notes more readable by simplifying, extracting information from, and adding context to the notes. We piloted the tool with clinical notes donated by patients with a history of breast cancer and synthetic notes from a clinician. Participants (N=200, healthy, female-identifying patients) were randomly assigned three clinical notes in our tool with varying levels of augmentations and answered quantitative and qualitative questions evaluating their understanding of follow-up actions. Augmentations significantly increased their quantitative understanding scores. In-depth interviews were conducted with participants (N=7, patients with a history of breast cancer), revealing both positive sentiments about the augmentations and concerns about AI. We also performed a qualitative clinician-driven analysis of the model's error modes.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. RELIANCE: Curating and Evaluating Reproductive Health Information on Social Media

    cs.SI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    RELIANCE is a new expert-annotated dataset of TikTok reproductive health content paired with LLM fact-checking evaluations showing 60% accuracy in sampled videos and a 15% gap between claim and full-content assessment.

  2. Enhancing LLMs for Identifying and Prioritizing Important Medical Jargons from Electronic Health Record Notes Utilizing Data Augmentation: A Comparative Study

    cs.CL 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Fine-tuning and data augmentation improve LLM performance on medical jargon extraction and prioritization from EHR notes, with augmented open-source models sometimes outperforming closed-source ones on 106 annotated notes.