AzTrials
AzTrials

Ophthalmic DiseaseNCT06859216

Evaluating AI-Generated Plain Language Summaries on Patient Comprehension of Ophthalmology Notes Among English-Speaking Patients

A study testing AI-Generated Plain Language Summaries in people with Ophthalmic Disease and Artifical Intelligence, run by University of California, Los Angeles at 1 site in United States.

Recruiting

Looking for participants now. Contact the study team or a site below to ask about taking part.

Sites and contacts
Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This clinical trial is testing whether plain language summaries made by artificial intelligence help people understand their eye doctor's notes better. Adults receiving eye care at the Jules Stein Eye Institute will get either the usual medical notes or a note with the addition of an AI-generated summary that explains… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
What is being tested?
AI-Generated Plain Language Summaries
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
460 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
1 Mar 2025to 1 Jun 2026
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Not yet: the study is under way

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Age ≥ 18 years English-speaking Receiving ophthalmology care at the Jules Stein Eye Institute Able to provide informed consent

Who cannot join

  • Known cognitive impairments (e.g., dementia, intellectual disability) that would affect comprehension Prisoners or wards of the state Unable to provide informed consent

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.

Prashant Tailor, MD contact

4043166920

ptailor@mednet.ucla.edu

United States1 site, 1 recruiting
  • UCLA

    Los Angeles, California, 90095

    Prashant D Tailor, MD, 4043166920, ptailor@mednet.ucla.edu

    Recruiting

Other trials in United States

About this study

This clinical trial is testing whether plain language summaries made by artificial intelligence help people understand their eye doctor's notes better. Adults receiving eye care at the Jules Stein Eye Institute will get either the usual medical notes or a note with the addition of an AI-generated summary that explains the information in simple, everyday words. Participants will then answer a short survey and receive a follow-up call to share how clear the information was, how well they understood their diagnosis and treatment, and whether they feel more confident about their care. The goal is to find out if these plain language summaries can make it easier for people to understand their eye care and improve communication between patients and health care providers.

Read the detailed description

This study employs a two-arm randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether artificial intelligence (AI)-generated plain language summaries (PLSs) can improve patient comprehension of ophthalmology notes. Eligible participants are recruited during their routine visits at the Jules Stein Eye Institute, and once screened using standardized clinical criteria, they are randomly assigned to either receive the standard ophthalmology note (SON) or the SON supplemented with an AI-generated PLS. The randomization process uses a computer-generated sequence with concealed allocation to ensure unbiased group assignment.

The AI system used in this study is deployed locally on a secured UCLA intranet. It leverages a large language model (LLM) that has been customized and validated for generating plain language explanations of complex ophthalmologic information. All processing occurs on UCLA-approved, encrypted devices, and no data are transmitted externally. Before the PLS is provided to participants, each summary is reviewed by an ophthalmologist to verify accuracy and ensure that essential clinical details are correctly and clearly communicated.

Data collection is performed using survey instruments. The survey includes a series of 5-point Likert scale items, open-ended questions, and structured response sections designed to assess comprehension of diagnosis, treatment plans, and follow-up instructions. Participants complete the survey immediately after their clinic visit, and a follow-up telephone interview is conducted approximately seven days later by trained research staff to capture additional feedback on clarity and retention of the information provided. The study does not employ audio or video recording; all responses are either directly recorded by research personnel or entered electronically into a secured database.

Statistical analyses will be conducted using standard software packages to compare outcomes between the intervention and control groups. Primary analyses include independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables, chi-square tests for categorical variables, and multivariable regression models to adjust for confounding variables such as age, education level, and baseline health literacy. The sample size was calculated to detect clinically meaningful differences in comprehension scores, with power analyses indicating a need for between 460 and 2030 participants depending on the effect size.

Data security is maintained through rigorous measures. Electronic data are stored on encrypted, UCLA-secured laptops and in a secure Box repository. All data handling follows UCLA policies and IRB guidelines for data retention and destruction, with identifiable information destroyed using secure methods once it is no longer required.

Quality control procedures include periodic audits of data entry, regular review meetings with study personnel, and cross-checks of survey responses against clinical records where applicable. An independent monitoring process is in place to ensure compliance with the study protocol and to address any deviations promptly.

Overall, this study is designed to provide robust evidence on the feasibility and effectiveness of AI-generated PLSs in enhancing patient understanding of complex medical information. By integrating technical safeguards, rigorous statistical methods, and a streamlined data collection process, the research aims to deliver insights that may lead to improved patient communication strategies and more effective health care delivery across multiple specialties.

Being tested
AI-Generated Plain Language Summaries
Keywords
Plain Language Summary, LLM, Artifical Intelligence, Patient education

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • AI-Generated Plain Language SummariesBehavioural

    Participants receive standard ophthalmology notes plus an AI-generated summary that explains medical information in simpler language. Each summary is reviewed by an ophthalmologist for accuracy before being given to the participant. The goal is to help participants better understand their diagnosis, treatment plan, and follow-up instructions.

Study groups in NCT06859216
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Standard Ophthalmology Notes (SON) OnlyNo interventionParticipants in this arm receive the standard ophthalmology notes typically provided after their clinic visit, with no additional plain language summary. They will complete surveys that measure their comprehension and satisfaction with the visit notes.
SON + AI-Generated Plain Language SummariesExperimentalParticipants in this arm receive the standard ophthalmology notes plus an AI-generated plain language summary, reviewed for accuracy before distribution. They will complete the same surveys to assess whether the additional summary improves their understanding and satisfaction compared to the control group.
Receives: Behavioral: AI-Generated Plain Language Summaries

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Patient Comprehension Score (Immediate Post-Visit)

    Mean score on a 5-point scale assessing participants' understanding of their ophthalmology visit notes (diagnosis, treatment plan, follow-up instructions) immediately after the clinic visit. Higher scores indicate better comprehension.

    Measured: Immediately post-visit (Day 0)

Secondary outcomes (9)
  1. Patient Comprehension Score (1-Week Follow-Up)

    Mean score on a 1-5 scale assessing retention of ophthalmology information one week after the clinic visit. Higher scores indicate better long-term comprehension.

    Measured: 1 week post-visit

  2. Patient Satisfaction

    Mean satisfaction score (1-5 scale) measuring clarity, detail, and usefulness of the visit notes. Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction.

    Measured: Immediately post-visit (Day 0)

  3. Comprehension Gap Reduction

    Difference in comprehension scores between participants with lower vs. higher baseline health literacy. A smaller gap indicates greater reduction in literacy-related disparities.

    Measured: Day 0 and 1 week post-visit

  4. Time Efficiency for Ophthalmologists

    Average additional time (in minutes) required for ophthalmologists to review and edit AI-generated Plain Language Summaries, reported in the ophthalmologist survey. Lower times indicate better efficiency.

    Measured: Day 0

  5. Inbasket Message Rates

    Number of patient-initiated messages (e.g., via patient portal) within 2 weeks after the visit. Lower message rates may indicate improved clarity and fewer follow-up questions.

    Measured: 2 weeks post-visit

  6. Medication Fill Compliance

    Percentage of prescribed medications filled within 2 weeks after the visit. Higher percentages indicate better adherence and understanding of treatment plans.

    Measured: 2 weeks post-visit

  7. Ophthalmologist Satisfaction

    Mean score (1-5 scale) from the ophthalmologist survey measuring satisfaction with the AI-generated summary's clarity and accuracy. Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction.

    Measured: Day 0

  8. LLM Summarization Error Rate

    Proportion of AI-generated summaries identified as having any errors by the reviewing ophthalmologist. Lower percentages indicate more accurate summaries.

    Measured: Day 0

  9. Error Rate for Ophthalmologist Overreads

    Percentage of critical inaccuracies in the AI-generated summaries that could lead to misinterpretation of the patient's condition or plan. Lower rates indicate higher-quality summaries.

    Measured: Day 0

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted5 Mar 2025
  2. Study start1 Mar 2025
  3. Primary completion30 Apr 2026 (estimated)
  4. Study completion1 Jun 2026 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Health services research
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
460 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT06859216
Sponsor's protocol ID
24-5649
Status last verified
Mar 2026
First submitted
23 Feb 2025
Last updated
5 Mar 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: De-identified individual participant data (IPD) underlying the study's results will be shared. The IPD includes patient survey responses on comprehension of ophthalmology visit notes (both immediately post-visit and at 1-week follow-up), patient satisfaction ratings, and demographic information (age, gender, education level, and previous ophthalmology experience). Additionally, survey responses from ophthalmologists regarding the accuracy, clarity, and time efficiency of the AI-generated plain language summaries will be provided. All data will be fully de-identified in compliance with HIPAA and UCLA guidelines using unique study IDs to replace personal identifiers, and no code keys linking data to individual participants will be shared.

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing AI-Generated Plain Language Summaries in people with Ophthalmic Disease and Artifical Intelligence, run by University of California, Los Angeles at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 5 Mar 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Prashant Tailor, MD (4043166920, ptailor@mednet.ucla.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Patient Comprehension Score (Immediate Post-Visit) (time frame: Immediately post-visit (Day 0)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 5 Mar 2026.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in