Comparing Large Language Models and Traditional Machine Translation Tools for Translating Medical Consultation Summaries: Quantitative Pilot Feasibility Study.
Andy Li, Wei Zhou, Rashina Hoda, Chris Bain, Peter Poon
{"title":"Comparing Large Language Models and Traditional Machine Translation Tools for Translating Medical Consultation Summaries: Quantitative Pilot Feasibility Study.","authors":"Andy Li, Wei Zhou, Rashina Hoda, Chris Bain, Peter Poon","doi":"10.2196/85169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Translation of medical consultation summaries is essential for equitable health care communication in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. While machine translation (MT) tools and large language models (LLMs) are widely accessible, their feasibility and safety for health care contexts remain underexplored.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This pilot study investigates the feasibility and limitations of using LLMs and traditional MT tools to translate medical consultation summaries from English into the most common languages other than English spoken in Australia-Arabic, Chinese (simplified written form), and Vietnamese.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two simulated summaries-a simple patient-facing summary and a complex clinician-oriented interprofessional letter-were translated using 3 LLMs (GPT-4o, Llama-3.1, and Gemma-2) and 3 MT tools (Google Translate, Microsoft Bing Translator, and DeepL). Translations were benchmarked against professional third-party interpreter translations using Bilingual Evaluation Understudy, Character-level F-score, and Metric for Evaluation of Translation with Explicit Ordering metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The translation performance varied across languages, tools, and summary complexity when assessed using automatic evaluation metrics. Traditional MT tools outperformed LLMs on surface-level metrics, while LLMs showed relative strengths in semantic similarity for Vietnamese and Chinese. Arabic translations improved with complex input, suggesting morphological advantages. The metric-based evaluation highlighted feasibility but also risks, particularly in Chinese clinical contexts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This pilot study provides formative evidence of opportunities and limitations in applying artificial intelligence translation for health care communication. Findings underscore the importance of human oversight; domain-specific evaluation metrics; and further formative and clinical research to guide the safe, equitable use of artificial intelligence translation tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":14841,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Formative Research","volume":"10 ","pages":"e85169"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13075536/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Formative Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/85169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Translation of medical consultation summaries is essential for equitable health care communication in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. While machine translation (MT) tools and large language models (LLMs) are widely accessible, their feasibility and safety for health care contexts remain underexplored.
Objective: This pilot study investigates the feasibility and limitations of using LLMs and traditional MT tools to translate medical consultation summaries from English into the most common languages other than English spoken in Australia-Arabic, Chinese (simplified written form), and Vietnamese.
Methods: Two simulated summaries-a simple patient-facing summary and a complex clinician-oriented interprofessional letter-were translated using 3 LLMs (GPT-4o, Llama-3.1, and Gemma-2) and 3 MT tools (Google Translate, Microsoft Bing Translator, and DeepL). Translations were benchmarked against professional third-party interpreter translations using Bilingual Evaluation Understudy, Character-level F-score, and Metric for Evaluation of Translation with Explicit Ordering metrics.
Results: The translation performance varied across languages, tools, and summary complexity when assessed using automatic evaluation metrics. Traditional MT tools outperformed LLMs on surface-level metrics, while LLMs showed relative strengths in semantic similarity for Vietnamese and Chinese. Arabic translations improved with complex input, suggesting morphological advantages. The metric-based evaluation highlighted feasibility but also risks, particularly in Chinese clinical contexts.
Conclusions: This pilot study provides formative evidence of opportunities and limitations in applying artificial intelligence translation for health care communication. Findings underscore the importance of human oversight; domain-specific evaluation metrics; and further formative and clinical research to guide the safe, equitable use of artificial intelligence translation tools.