Bladder Cancer, Kidney Cancers, Prostate Cancer (Adenocarcinoma), Testis Cancer
Conditions
Keywords
Bridge AI, Generative Artificial Intelligence, GAI
Brief summary
This trial tests if AI can help make medical info clear and readable. Many patients struggle to find medical informations that easy to read and understand from verified medical sources. The study tests if an AI tool can assist health providers to craft clear text for patients more fast than what they do now. Health providers are split at random into two groups-one uses the AI tool and one does not. The trial tests how clear the text is, how correct it is, and how much time is saved. The aim is to see if AI can close the gap between complex research and what patients can grasp.
Detailed description
This study evaluates whether a generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool can improve the readability and accessibility of lay summaries derived from scientific medical abstracts. Many patients encounter difficulty understanding medical literature due to technical language and complexity, which can limit informed decision-making and engagement with healthcare information. The BRIDGE-AI (Provider Perspective) initiative aims to address this gap by enabling healthcare professionals and researchers to generate patient-friendly summaries of scientific content using AI-assisted tools. The intervention leverages a generative AI framework (pub2people) designed to translate complex medical terminology into language that is understandable to a general audience. In this randomized controlled study, participants with experience in scientific publishing will be assigned to either an AI-assisted group or a control group using conventional methods. Participants will be asked to transform scientific abstracts into layperson-friendly summaries. The study compares AI-assisted and manually generated outputs in terms of readability, accuracy, and efficiency. The primary objective is to determine whether AI-assisted generation improves the readability of lay summaries compared to standard approaches. Secondary objectives include evaluating the accuracy of AI-generated summaries relative to source material and assessing potential time savings associated with AI use. This study contributes to ongoing efforts to improve health communication by evaluating scalable tools that may enhance the translation of complex medical information into patient-accessible formats.
Interventions
OTHERPub2Post
Pub2Post, a generative artificial intelligence agent which helps in drafting the layperson abstracts and summaries
Sponsors
University of Southern California
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Intervention model description
This is a parallel-group randomized controlled trial in which participants are assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either an AI-assisted intervention arm or a control arm using conventional methods. In the intervention arm, participants use a generative AI tool to produce lay summaries from scientific abstracts. In the control arm, participants generate lay summaries without AI assistance. Outcomes are assessed post-task for each participant. No crossover between arms is planned.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Provider Participants Inclusion: * Corresponding authors who have been published in the top 10 journals of urology and medicine * All genders * Any profession * 18+ years of age Exclusion: * Anyone under the age of 18 * Participants that have not published in the top 10 journals of urology and medicine
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Readability Change | The assessment will be conducted immediately after the study closes, which will occur 4 weeks after enrollment. | Flesch Reading Ease Score Description: Measures text readability based on sentence length and word syllables. Scale: 0 to 100 Interpretation: Higher scores indicate easier readability (better outcome). |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Time Saving | The assessment will be conducted immediately after the study closes, which will occur 4 weeks after enrollment. | To evaluate the time savings achieved by using generative AI compared to traditional methods for generating layperson abstracts and summaries. Time will be recorded in hours, minutes, and seconds. We will collect and compare the total time spent drafting the complete layperson abstract and summaries, as well as the time spent on each individual section - background, methods, results, conclusion, and short summaries. The comparison will be made between summaries created by humans alone versus those created with GAI assistance. Time will be reported in minutes |
| Correctness and meaning retention | The assessment will be conducted immediately after the study closes, which will occur 4 weeks after enrollment. | Accuracy Score of Layperson Abstract Sections Description: Degree to which each section (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion, Short Summary) reflects key information from the original scientific abstract. Scale: 5-point Likert scale (1 = very inaccurate, 5 = highly accurate) Assessment Method: Two independent reviewers score each section Interpretation: Higher scores indicate better accuracy (better outcome). |
| Perceived Task Difficulty | The assessment will be conducted immediately after the study closes, which will occur 4 weeks after enrollment | Description: Participant-reported difficulty of completing the lay abstract summarization task. Scale: 5-point Likert scale (1 = very easy, 5 = very difficult) (adjust anchors if different in your instrument) Assessment Timing: Immediately after task completion Interpretation: Lower scores indicate less perceived difficulty (better outcome) |
| Perceived Task Duration | The assessment will be conducted immediately after the study closes, which will occur 4 weeks after enrollment | Description: Participant perception of time required to complete the task. Scale: 5-point Likert scale (1 = very short, 5 = very long) Assessment Timing: Post-task Interpretation: Lower scores indicate shorter perceived duration (better outcome) |
| Perceived Helpfulness of the intervention | The assessment will be conducted immediately after the study closes, which will occur 4 weeks after enrollment | Description: Participant-reported usefulness of the generative AI tool in assisting lay abstract creation. Scale: 5-point Likert scale (1 = not helpful at all, 5 = extremely helpful) Assessment Timing: Post-task Interpretation: Higher scores indicate greater perceived helpfulness (better outcome) |
| System Usability Scale (SUS) Score | Immediately after completing the system/task (post-use assessment) | Description: Standardized assessment of system usability using the System Usability Scale. Scale: 0 to 100 Interpretation: Higher scores indicate better usability * 70: acceptable usability * 90: superior usability |
| Perceived Usefulness (Technology Acceptance Model) | Immediately after completing the system/task (post-use assessment) | Description: Degree to which participants believe the GAI tool enhances task performance. Scale: Likert scale (typically 1-5 or 1-7; specify exact instrument version) Interpretation: Higher scores indicate greater perceived usefulness (better outcome) |
| Perceived Ease of Use (Technology Acceptance Model) | Immediately after completing the system/task (post-use assessment) | Description: Degree to which participants find the GAI tool easy to use. Scale: Likert scale (typically 1-5 or 1-7; must match instrument used) Interpretation: Higher scores indicate greater ease of use (better outcome) |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed