Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

The study tests whether abstracts can replace full texts as input for LLM-based biomedical lay summarization, and whether few-shot prompting can match task-specific fine-tuning. Its main result is a runtime tradeoff: abstract-based methods run about 4.7 to 5.3 times faster while the authors report comparable or better overall quality, though the evaluation covers only two datasets and two models. For readers, the practical point is that input scope and prompting strategy can cut compute costs substantially, but these gains should be checked against the specific task and domain.
Sources coveringarXiv, LessWrong, Latent Space, Slack Blog
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Abstracts or full text? Evaluating input scope and computational efficiency in biomedical lay summarization

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.21690v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Biomedical research articles are mainly written for experts and often contain terms that are difficult for the general public to understand. Automated lay summarization has become a solution to make biomedical knowledge easier for patients and the public to understand. However, generating lay summaries from full-text articles requires more computing power because the articles are long and costly to process. Fine-tuning large language models for this task also requires substantial resources. This study asks two questions: (1) whether abstracts contain enough information to produce lay summaries as good as those based on full-text articles, and (2) whether few-shot learning performs as well as task-specific fine-tuning. The study used two public biomedical lay summarization datasets and two recent models, evaluated for readability, factual consistency, semantic similarity, and runtime efficiency. Results show that abstract-based summarization performs better overall. Across both datasets and models, abstract fine-tuning is 4.70 times faster, while abstract zero- and few-shot prompting is 5.31 times faster than full-text methods. These results show that abstract-based prompting reduces runtime cost while maintaining lay summary quality.

Title:Abstracts or full text? Evaluating input scope and computational efficiency in biomedical lay summarization

Abstract:Biomedical research articles are mainly written for experts and often contain terms that are difficult for the general public to understand. Automated lay summarization has become a solution to make biomedical knowledge easier for patients and the public to understand. However, generating lay summaries from full-text articles requires more computing power because the articles are long and costly to process. Fine-tuning large language models for this task also requires substantial resources. This study asks two questions: (1) whether abstracts contain enough information to produce lay summaries as good as those based on full-text articles, and (2) whether few-shot learning performs as well as task-specific fine-tuning. The study used two public biomedical lay summarization datasets and two recent models, evaluated for readability, factual consistency, semantic similarity, and runtime efficiency. Results show that abstract-based summarization performs better overall. Across both datasets and models, abstract fine-tuning is 4.70 times faster, while abstract zero- and few-shot prompting is 5.31 times faster than full-text methods. These results show that abstract-based prompting reduces runtime cost while maintaining lay summary quality.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2610.21690 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.21690v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.21690 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 283 words

Related coverage