Scholarlink

<p>Limited English proficiency affects over 25 million people in the United States and is associated with disparities in healthcare access, safety, and outcomes. We conducted a prospective, within-subject, simulation-based comparison to evaluate whether an in-house AI application (LingualAI) achieves non-inferior translation quality versus certified medical interpreters in English–Spanish otorhinolaryngology encounters. Standardized clinician–patient scripts were translated by LingualAI and by certified interpreters, and bilingual clinicians rated anonymized audio across multidomain quality measures. Using a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.30 points (Human − AI) on 5-point scales, LingualAI met non-inferiority for 2 of 3 primary factors (terminology accuracy Δ = 0.07; adequacy of meaning Δ = 0.13) but not clarity (Δ = 0.50). It met non-inferiority for 1 secondary factor (completeness Δ = 0.14), while grammar (Δ = 0.21; upper 95% CI = 0.34), vocabulary (Δ = 0.18; upper 95% CI = 0.32), and cultural appropriateness (Δ = 0.39) exceeded the margin. No voice-related factors met non-inferiority (fluency Δ = 1.13; prosody Δ = 0.59; pacing Δ = 0.40), and conclusive ratings favored interpreters (overall quality Δ = 0.58; clinical confidence Δ = 0.61). These findings suggest LingualAI preserves core clinical meaning and terminology but remains limited by speech naturalness and delivery, supporting use as an adjunct when interpreter access is constrained and favoring interpreter-in-the-loop deployment for higher-stakes communication.</p><p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluating LingualAI: a prospective validation of AI-based real-time translation against certified human interpreters

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月12日

查看全文
  • Uday P. Singh,
  • Carlos A. Jaimes Garcia,
  • Gabriel M. Aisenberg,
  • Javier Barreda Garcia,
  • Jessica A. Hernandez-Chilatra,
  • Cecilia Wang,
  • Dalilah Reyes de Jesus,
  • Eileen Whalen,
  • Veronica Santos Canellas,
  • Amanda R. Falk Vargas,
  • Brian O. Rodriguez Echevarria,
  • Martin J. Citardi,
  • Babatope O. Fatuyi,
  • Xiaoqian Jiang

摘要

Limited English proficiency affects over 25 million people in the United States and is associated with disparities in healthcare access, safety, and outcomes. We conducted a prospective, within-subject, simulation-based comparison to evaluate whether an in-house AI application (LingualAI) achieves non-inferior translation quality versus certified medical interpreters in English–Spanish otorhinolaryngology encounters. Standardized clinician–patient scripts were translated by LingualAI and by certified interpreters, and bilingual clinicians rated anonymized audio across multidomain quality measures. Using a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.30 points (Human − AI) on 5-point scales, LingualAI met non-inferiority for 2 of 3 primary factors (terminology accuracy Δ = 0.07; adequacy of meaning Δ = 0.13) but not clarity (Δ = 0.50). It met non-inferiority for 1 secondary factor (completeness Δ = 0.14), while grammar (Δ = 0.21; upper 95% CI = 0.34), vocabulary (Δ = 0.18; upper 95% CI = 0.32), and cultural appropriateness (Δ = 0.39) exceeded the margin. No voice-related factors met non-inferiority (fluency Δ = 1.13; prosody Δ = 0.59; pacing Δ = 0.40), and conclusive ratings favored interpreters (overall quality Δ = 0.58; clinical confidence Δ = 0.61). These findings suggest LingualAI preserves core clinical meaning and terminology but remains limited by speech naturalness and delivery, supporting use as an adjunct when interpreter access is constrained and favoring interpreter-in-the-loop deployment for higher-stakes communication.