# Plain language adaptations of biomedical text using LLMs: Comparision of evaluation metrics

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.16530 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.16530/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 4 of its 11 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Dec 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [A Dataset for Plain Language Adaptation of Biomedical Abstracts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.12242/) (2022)
- [Contamination Report for Multilingual Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.16186/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This study investigated the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) for simplifying biomedical texts to enhance health literacy. Using a public dataset, which included plain language adaptations of biomedical abstracts, we developed and evaluated several approaches, specifically a baseline approach using a prompt template, a two AI agent approach, and a fine-tuning approach. We selected OpenAI gpt-4o and gpt-4o mini models as baselines for further research. We evaluated our approaches with quantitative metrics, such as Flesch-Kincaid grade level, SMOG Index, SARI, and BERTScore, G-Eval, as well as with qualitative metric, more precisely 5-point Likert scales for simplicity, accuracy, completeness, brevity. Results showed a superior performance of gpt-4o-mini and an underperformance of FT approaches. G-Eval, a LLM based quantitative metric, showed promising results, ranking the approaches similarly as the qualitative metric.