Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Automated Lay Language Summarization of Biomedical Scientific Reviews

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 2012.12573 v3 pith:EUHFSX3A submitted 2020-12-23 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords automatedlanguagebiomedicalhealthsummariessummarizationaccessibilityenhance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Health literacy has emerged as a crucial factor in making appropriate health decisions and ensuring treatment outcomes. However, medical jargon and the complex structure of professional language in this domain make health information especially hard to interpret. Thus, there is an urgent unmet need for automated methods to enhance the accessibility of the biomedical literature to the general population. This problem can be framed as a type of translation problem between the language of healthcare professionals, and that of the general public. In this paper, we introduce the novel task of automated generation of lay language summaries of biomedical scientific reviews, and construct a dataset to support the development and evaluation of automated methods through which to enhance the accessibility of the biomedical literature. We conduct analyses of the various challenges in solving this task, including not only summarization of the key points but also explanation of background knowledge and simplification of professional language. We experiment with state-of-the-art summarization models as well as several data augmentation techniques, and evaluate their performance using both automated metrics and human assessment. Results indicate that automatically generated summaries produced using contemporary neural architectures can achieve promising quality and readability as compared with reference summaries developed for the lay public by experts (best ROUGE-L of 50.24 and Flesch-Kincaid readability score of 13.30). We also discuss the limitations of the current attempt, providing insights and directions for future work.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Development and Validation of the Provider Documentation Summarization Quality Instrument for Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PDSQI-9 is a 9-item instrument for rating LLM-generated clinical summaries; in a validation study with 7 physician raters and 779 summary evaluations, it showed Cronbach's alpha 0.879 and ICC 0.867, but Krippendorff's...

  2. Mapping Scientific Literature with Large Language Models and Topic Modeling

    cs.DL 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An LLM-based pipeline turns 20 years of PNAS engineering abstracts into sixteen interpretable topics and maps cross-topic links from full text, claiming to rediscover the journal's own dual-classification structure.

Pith tools