Reader’s digest version of scientific writing: comparative evaluation of summarization capacity between large language models and medical students in analyzing scientific writing in sleep medicine
Introduction: As artificial intelligence systems like large language models (LLM) and natural language processing advance, the need to evaluate their utility within medicine and medical education grows. As medical research publications continue to grow exponentially, AI systems offer valuable opportunities to condense and synthesize information, especially in underrepresented areas such as Sleep Medicine. The present study aims to compare summarization capacity between LLM generated summaries of sleep medicine research article abstracts, to summaries generated by Medical Student (humans) and to evaluate if the research content, and literary readability summarized is retained comparably.Methods: A collection of three AI-generated and human-generated summaries of sleep medicine research article abstracts were shared with 19 study participants (medical students) attending a sleep medicine conference. Participants were blind as to which summary was human or LLM generated. After reading both human and AI-generated research summaries participants completed a 1–5 Likert scale survey on the readability of the extracted writings. Participants also answered article-specific multiple-choice questions evaluating their comprehension of the summaries, as a representation of the quality of content retained by the AI-generated summaries.Results: An independent sample t-test between the AI-generated and human-generated summaries comprehension by study participants revealed no significant difference between the Likert readability ratings (p = 0.702). A chi-squared test of proportions revealed no significant association (χ2 = 1.485, p = 0.223), and a McNemar test revealed no significant association between summary type and the proportion of correct responses to the comprehension multiple choice questions (p = 0.289).Discussion: Some limitations in this study were a small number of participants and user bias. Participants attended at a sleep conference and study summaries were all from sleep medicine journals. Lastly the summaries did not include graphs, numbers, and pictures, and thus were limited in material extraction. While the present analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference among the readability and content quality between the AI and human-generated summaries, limitations in the present study indicate that more research is needed to objectively measure, and further define strengths and weaknesses of AI models in condensing medical literature into efficient and accurate summaries.