PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 8, 2026Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology0 citations

Artificial Intelligence–Driven Adaptation of Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Case Descriptions for Family Communication

View Full Paper
AGAlejandro García-RudolphMBMarc Navarro BerenguelEOEloy Opisso

Key Points

  • The focus was to evaluate whether a large language model can create suitable case descriptions for families of children with traumatic brain injuries.
  • Adapted five case descriptions into four audience-specific scenarios.
  • Assessed text complexity using Flesch–Kincaid, Gunning Fog, and SMOG indices.
  • Rated text fidelity and emotional tone by clinical experts on a 3-point scale.
  • Original texts had high complexity scores (FKS 18.2–20.5).
  • Parent-adapted texts were often oversimplified (FKS 4.75–7.1).
  • Texts for 12-year-olds matched complexity expectations (FKS ~5–6).
  • 8-year-old adaptations had higher complexity than desired (FKS 4.0–6.8) with reduced fidelity (scores 1–2).
  • Emotional tone was rated as appropriate across all adaptations.

Abstract

Abstract Objective We examined whether GPT-4o, a widely used large language model (LLM), could produce age- and education-appropriate versions of complex pediatric traumatic brain injury case descriptions, while preserving clinical accuracy and emotional tone. Methods Five cases were adapted into four audience scenarios. Text complexity was assessed via Flesch–Kincaid (FKS), Gunning Fog, and SMOG indices. Clinical human experts rated text fidelity and emotional appropriateness on a 3-point scale. Results Original texts showed very high complexity (FKS 18.2–20.5), equivalent to 18–20 years of education. Adaptations for parents with high school education were often over-simplified (FKS 4.75–7.1), while versions for 12-year-olds were well-matched (FKS ~5–6). Texts for 8-year-olds had FKS scores of 4.0–6.8 (above grade 2–3 targets) and reduced fidelity (scores 1–2). Emotional tone was consistently rated appropriate across all audiences. Conclusion Clinicians may use LLMs to draft explanations, but must carefully review and tailor them.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

García-Rudolph et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/698828b90fc35cd7a8848667https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acag007
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper