Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Readability Controllable Biomedical Document Summarization

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 2210.04705 v3 pith:EDYS53EL submitted 2022-10-10 cs.CL

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

Different from general documents, it is recognised that the ease with which people can understand a biomedical text is eminently varied, owing to the highly technical nature of biomedical documents and the variance of readers' domain knowledge. However, existing biomedical document summarization systems have paid little attention to readability control, leaving users with summaries that are incompatible with their levels of expertise. In recognition of this urgent demand, we introduce a new task of readability controllable summarization for biomedical documents, which aims to recognise users' readability demands and generate summaries that better suit their needs: technical summaries for experts and plain language summaries (PLS) for laymen. To establish this task, we construct a corpus consisting of biomedical papers with technical summaries and PLSs written by the authors, and benchmark multiple advanced controllable abstractive and extractive summarization models based on pre-trained language models (PLMs) with prevalent controlling and generation techniques. Moreover, we propose a novel masked language model (MLM) based metric and its variant to effectively evaluate the readability discrepancy between lay and technical summaries. Experimental results from automated and human evaluations show that though current control techniques allow for a certain degree of readability adjustment during generation, the performance of existing controllable summarization methods is far from desirable in this task.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Evaluating the Evaluators: Are readability metrics good measures of readability?

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Classic readability formulas correlate weakly with human readability judgments for plain-language summaries (FKGL r=0.16), the best LLM judge reaches r=0.56, and the two evaluator families rank datasets nearly opposite.

  2. MedReadCtrl: Personalizing medical text generation with readability-controlled instruction learning

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    MedReadCtrl instruction-tunes LLaMA3 to control readability at 12 grade levels, reporting lower readability errors than GPT-4 and higher content scores on unseen clinical simplification.

Pith tools