





































       V38 N3 / 2023 

©2023 American Medical Writers Association. All rights reserved.  
ISSN 2163-5315

AMWAJournal.org     14

THEME ARTICLE

ABSTRACT
Although access to scientific information has improved 
for the general public since the introduction of plain lan-
guage summaries (PLSs) and the open-access publishing 
movement, language barriers still impede the widespread 
dissemination of information. Most scientific articles are 
published in English language only, despite English speak-
ers comprising just 17% of the world’s population. Here we 
present a pilot analysis that aimed to compare the transla-
tion quality of PLSs and abstracts translated by a selected 
browser-based translation software. We translated abstracts 
and PLSs from 5 medical journal publications into French, 
German, Mandarin, and Slovenian using Google Translate. 
Four bilingual reviewers with a scientific background 
assessed the translation quality using pre-defined survey 
questions that covered the appropriateness of word/phrase 
selection, grammar, and clarity. We assessed the number of 
errors of each type and used a 5-point Likert scale to mea-
sure the impact of these errors on the meaning of the text. 
Translations of both PLSs and abstracts were considered 
accurate and readable, although PLSs scored higher across 
most measures. For overall accuracy, translated PLSs scored 
higher on the Likert scale than translated abstracts (mean, 
4.60 vs 4.30, respectively), with 60% of PLS translations con-
sidered to be “very accurate” compared with 45% of abstract 
translations. PLSs were also considered less likely to be 
misinterpreted (mean, 4.55 vs 4.25, respectively), with 60% 
of PLS translations compared with 45% of abstract transla-
tions reported as “definitely not” likely to be misinterpreted. 
Based on our findings, Google Translate potentially offers 
a quick and easy approach to translating scientific/medical 
information summaries for non-English speakers. However, 
before these articles can be translated, they must be discov-
erable by non-English speakers. Engagement and collabora-
tion with medical publishers are needed to improve access 
for non-English speakers, including provision and PubMed 
indexing of PLSs that can be translated easily.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
Articles that report results from scientific studies are 
often written in technical language that can be difficult to 
understand. Scientific articles usually begin with a short 
summary, called an abstract. Sometimes, plain language 
summaries (PLSs) are also available which are written using 
straightforward language. The aim of including a PLS is to 
make sure that the scientific information can be under-
stood easily by the general public. However, there is another 
language barrier that can make it difficult for people to 
read scientific articles: most are only written in English. 
Specialist services can be used to translate articles into 
other languages, but this can be expensive and time- 
consuming and so is not done often. In our study, we mea-
sured how well a free, online translation tool (Google 
Translate) could translate PLSs and abstracts from 5 
English-language articles into French, German, Mandarin, 
and Slovenian. Four people who spoke English and one of 
the 4 languages read the translations and answered a survey 
about the translation quality. Overall, translations of both 
PLSs and abstracts were accurate and easy to read, but PLS 
translations were slightly better than abstract translations 
across all the measures. The results of our study show that 
Google Translate offers a free, quick, and easy way to accu-
rately translate summaries of scientific information which 
could help people who do not speak English to understand 
the information. Importantly, before articles can be trans-
lated, non-English speakers need to be able to find them. To 
improve access to scientific articles, we suggest that scien-
tists work with publishers to increase the number of articles 
that have PLSs, and to make sure that these can be found 
easily by people who do not speak English.

BACKGROUND
Accessibility of scientific information is an ongoing topic of 
discussion. Most scientific articles are written in technical 
language, which is not easily understood by all readers and 
is a barrier to the widespread accessibility of scientific infor-
mation. In fact, evidence suggests that scientific literature 

Claire Beeby1; Eleanor J. Raynsford, PhD2; and Charles Pollitt, PhD2 / 1Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd, London,  
United Kingdom; 2Ipsen, Slough, United Kingdom

Science Without Borders – Can Translation Tools Bridge the  
Language Gap?

http://www.amwajournal.org


AMWAJournal.org     15Science Without Borders – Can Translation Tools Bridge the Language Gap?

is becoming less easy to understand, with long words, long 
sentences, and jargon preventing easy comprehension.1 
This is counterintuitive given the current focus on making 
science accessible to all. The proportion of freely available 
scientific literature has continued to grow since open- 
access publishing was proposed 20 years ago,2,3 but if the 
average reader cannot easily understand the information, 
these efforts seem hollow. Plain language summaries (PLSs) 
offer a solution to this problem, and are increasingly popular 
with the aim of supporting nonspecialists (as well as time-
poor readers) to understand the content of research articles 
easily, thereby further enhancing research accessibility.1

 Although the volume of freely available scientific liter-
ature is increasing, as well as the number of articles that 
include PLSs, the proportion of articles published in lan-
guages other than English is decreasing. In the early 1900s, 
around one-third of scientific articles were written in 
English.4 This had risen to around three-quarters of scientific 
articles published in English by 2013.4 However, around 83% 
of the world’s population is non-English speaking, leaving a 
huge accessibility gap for both lay people and the scientific 
community.4

 To close this gap, there is a need to improve accessibil-
ity of medical information for non-English speaking physi-
cians, researchers, policymakers, patients, and caregivers. 
Physicians who do not speak English may be at a disadvan-
tage if they do not have timely access to important scientific 
information in their own language, for example results of clin-
ical trials. Physicians who speak English as a second language 
may also find it harder to understand5 or remember6 scientific 
information that they have read in English than information 

supplied in their native language. Even high-profile research 
funded by non-English speaking governments is likely to be 
published in English, limiting accessibility within its country 
of origin if no translation is provided.7

 Although specialist translation services offer high-quality 
translations of scientific text, time and cost may be barriers 
for most individuals and organizations to get articles they 
want to read translated regularly. Browser-based translation 
tools offer the potential for quick, easy, and free-of-charge 
translation of scientific articles. Free translation tools are 
largely trained on nontechnical language rather than sci-
entific literature, and so may not translate scientific articles 
as clearly or accurately as plain language text.8 Although 
abstracts provide a convenient condensed summary of a  
scientific article’s content, most are written in highly- 
technical language. The rise in popularity of PLSs may  
therefore allow for enhanced access to scientific information 
for non-English speakers, provided that browser-based tools 
can accurately translate these summaries.  
 In August 2022, we performed a pilot analysis compar-
ing the quality of translation of PLSs and scientific abstracts 
when carried out using a selected browser-based translation 
software. This analysis was presented as a poster at both the 
European and annual meetings of the International Society 
for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) in 2023.9,10

METHODS
We selected 5 Ipsen-sponsored articles with accompanying 
PLSs for translation (Figure 1).11-15 Our decision to use arti-
cles and PLSs from a single source was designed to limit any 
impact of differences in the quality of written English in 

Figure 1. Study design. PLS, plain language summary.
aIpsen-sponsored publications were selected because they were readily accessible and known to have both abstracts and PLSs. 
bLanguages were selected as representative of some widely spoken language families, and because these were the native languages of 4 in-house bilingual employees. 
cOne reviewer per translated language. 
dUsing standardized assessments, reviewers judged the impact of each category on the meaning, understanding, and readability of translated text. 
e“Accuracy” and “likelihood of misinterpretation” were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale; 5 = highest accuracy and lowest likelihood of misinterpretation.

5 Ipsen-sponsored
publicationsa,11–15

with abstracts and PLSs 
of similar length

covering a range of therapy 
areas and study types

4 languages
translatedb

A

French

German

Slovenian

Mandarin

4 bilingual
reviewersb

Word selection

Grammar

Phraseology

Claritye

Non-translated

Additions Deletions

using Google Translate with medical writing 
experience evaluated

4 survey categories 
assessedd

20 translations per
document typec

5× PLSs

5× abstracts

Misspellings

Phrases Tone

Grammar/syntax Punctuation

Symbols/units/numbers/dates

Accuracy Likelihood of 
misinterpretation

诶

http://www.amwajournal.org


AMWAJournal.org     16Science Without Borders – Can Translation Tools Bridge the Language Gap?

original documents on the translations. All of the selected 
publications had utilized medical writing assistance, ensur-
ing that they were written in high-quality English.
 Google Translate was used to translate the PLSs and 
abstracts into 4 languages that are representative of some 
widely-spoken language families (French, German, 
Mandarin, and Slovenian). Although other browser-based 
translation tools are available, we selected Google Translate 
because it is well known, free to use, and is incorporated in 
Google Chrome, the most widely-used Internet browser  
(as of July 2023).16

 For each language, 1 bilingual reviewer with a scien-
tific background assessed the translation quality using pre-
defined survey questions that covered the appropriateness 
of word/phrase selection, grammar, and clarity. Reviewers 
assessed the number of errors of each type, and used a 
5-point Likert scale17 to measure the impact of these errors 
on the meaning of the text.

RESULTS
Word Selection
When assessed at the level of individual words, transla-
tions of PLSs and abstracts performed similarly (Figure 2). 
Inappropriate word insertion (0.2% vs 0.1% words), omis-
sion (0.2% vs 0.2%), and misspelling (0.05% vs 0.02%) rates 
were low in both translated PLSs and abstracts respectively, 
and most errors had little or no impact on the meaning of 
the text. However, translated PLSs had lower proportions of 
untranslated and mistranslated words than abstracts (both 
comparisons 0.6% vs 1.0%).

Phraseology
There were fewer incorrect phrase translations in translated 
PLSs than in translated abstracts (0.35 vs 0.41 errors/100 
words).

Grammar
Translated PLSs had similar rates of grammatical/syntax 
errors to abstracts, but a lower proportion of these errors 
was identified as having the potential to lead to misinterpre-
tation (17.2% vs 40%, respectively).

Clarity
On a 5-point Likert scale, translated PLS scored favorably 
compared with abstracts for overall translation accuracy 
(mean, 4.60 vs 4.30, respectively) and likelihood of misin-
terpretation (mean, 4.55 vs 4.25, respectively). For overall 
translation accuracy, the proportions of translations con-
sidered to be “very accurate” were 60% for PLSs and 45% for 
abstracts (Figure 3). Regarding how likely it was that transla-
tion errors would lead to misinterpretation of the informa-
tion, 60% of translated PLSs and 45% of translated abstracts 
were scored as “definitely not” likely to be misinterpreted 
(Figure 4).
 There were no notable differences in results between 
different languages, although the sample size was not large 
enough to detect inter-language differences.

DISCUSSION
The language barrier is a big hurdle for information acces-
sibility in scientific publishing. One solution could be for 
English-language journals to provide alternative languages 
for abstracts. Nevertheless, there are many difficulties with 
this approach, not least the cost, workforce capacity, and 
expertise needed to review translations.

Figure 2. Translation errors (A. word selection and B. phraseology). 
PLS, plain language summary.

Missing Inserted Untranslated Misspelled Incorrectly
translated

Incorrectly
translated

0.22 0.20

1.05

0.64

0.020.05

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

W
or

d t
ra

ns
lat

ion
 er

ro
rs 

(%
)

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0Ph
ra

se
 tr

an
sla

tio
n e

rro
rs 

(e
rro

rs 
pe

r 1
00

 w
or

ds
)A B

PLSs
Abstracts

0.17
0.07

0.55

0.98

0.35
0.41

Figure 3. Translation accuracy. None of the reviewers found the 
translated text of PLSs or abstracts in any language to be “inaccurate” 
or “very inaccurate.” PLS, plain language summary.

60%
40%

45%
40%

15%

Very accurate
Accurate
Acceptable
Inaccurate
Very inaccurate

Overall, how accurate was the translation to the original text?

PLSs

Abstracts

http://www.amwajournal.org


AMWAJournal.org     17Science Without Borders – Can Translation Tools Bridge the Language Gap?

 If freely available tools can translate scientific informa-
tion clearly and accurately, non-English speakers could 
use these tools to read scientific abstracts in their own lan-
guage. Our pilot study showed that, although not perfectly, 
both plain language and technical language scientific 
information were considered accurate and readable when 
translated using Google Translate. PLSs scored higher 
across most measures, possibly owing to the inclusion of 
complex sentences, abbreviations, and scientific termi-
nology within the abstracts. However, the differences were 
generally small, and no statistical testing was conducted  
to establish whether the differences were statistically  
significant.
 Based on comments provided by the bilingual reviewers 
in our study, there are potential considerations when writ-
ing PLSs and abstracts that may help to make the text more 
easily understood when translated via browser-based soft-
ware. Translations of text that used the active voice were 
more readable and natural than those that used the passive 
voice. Acronyms were not translated consistently; although 
Google Translate could often recognize an acronym when 
it was first defined, acronyms were often lost in transla-
tion when used subsequently, or when an “s” was added to 
create the plural form. Practical guidance has previously 
been given for creating PLSs that are accessible for layper-
sons,18,19 and a similar set of recommendations for creating 
translation-friendly summaries would go some way to help-
ing non-English speakers have easier access to scientific 

information. Learnings from this study inform some initial 
recommendations, but more work will be needed to refine 
this list in the future.
 Although this study focused on abstracts and PLSs, it 
highlights the importance of using clear and simple lan-
guage in general. Ideally these learnings should also be 
applied to full-length articles. In 2020, Future Science Group 
was the first publisher to offer full-length PLSs of publi-
cations (PLSPs)—standalone summaries of entire articles 
written in nontechnical language.19 Several of these sum-
maries have been made available in several languages,20-23 
despite the original scientific article being published in 
English language only. Additional publishers have now also 
started to offer similar opportunities to publish in plain lan-
guage. However, fewer than 100 PLSPs have been published 
to-date, so they do not yet offer a broad opportunity to make 
full-length plain-language texts available for translation by 
non-English speakers.24

 These study results are promising, but are small adjust-
ments to the way we write enough to enhance access to 
medical information for non-English speakers?
 Some journals already offer translated abstracts, and 
multilingual journals publish abstracts in multiple lan-
guages. Other journals allow the opportunity to upload a 
translated abstract in the author’s native language or in 
additional languages. Despite this, even when a translation 
is available, it is not always easy to find. Without knowing in 
advance which journals offer abstracts in their native lan-
guage, non-English speakers must search for them, so how 
can we ensure non-English speakers can find the articles 
they need? Language filters are available on PubMed for 
articles written in non-English language, but for English-
language publications, PubMed displays abstracts in 
English by default. When a translation is available, this must 
be accessed via a link.25 There are tools available to help 
non-English speakers to use PubMed to find articles writ-
ten in their native language. Technical solutions have been 
proposed to allow non-native English speakers to search for 
English-language articles on PubMed, for example, a Web-
based tool that helps users to build PubMed searches in 
several languages (multilingual Query Builder).26 However, 
to the best of our knowledge, these search tools are neither 
readily available nor in common use.
 Whether they speak English or not, laypersons wishing 
to access scientific literature may not be experts in search-
ing for scientific information. There may be additional need 
to ensure that PLSs are easily found. Although some PLSs 
are indexed and tagged in PubMed, there may be a need 
for a lay-friendly database or search engine dedicated to 
PLSs that would ideally be searchable in any language. 
Additionally, publishers and the scientific community 

Figure 4. Likelihood of misinterpretation of translated text. None of 
the reviewers found the translated text of PLSs or abstracts in any 
language to be “probably” or “definitely” misinterpreted. PLS, plain 
language summary.

60%
40%

45%
40%

15%

Definitely not

PLSs

Probably not
Possibly
Probably
Definitely

Overall, how likely is it that the text will be misinterpreted?

Abstracts

http://www.amwajournal.org


AMWAJournal.org     18Science Without Borders – Can Translation Tools Bridge the Language Gap?

should work together with providers of translation software 
to ensure that, when professional translations of technical- 
language publications have been provided, these are made 
available for training of machine translation software.
 It is likely to be some time, if ever, before Google 
Translate (and similar software) is sufficient for people to 
remove the need for specialist translation of scientific arti-
cles. This is particularly pertinent to the pharmaceutical 
industry, in which companies must comply with profes-
sional standards, regulations, and laws to ensure clinical 
trial results are reported accurately. Currently, translations 
from browser-based software could not be used without 
professional review of the translation.

Study Limitations
With only 5 publications, 4 languages, and 1 reviewer 
per language, the sample size in this study was limited. 
Although efforts were made to include different therapy 
areas and study types, the publications were developed by 
a single sponsor and were of uniform quality, and the writ-
ing style was similar across the 5 publications. For the most 
part, there is a lot of Internet content written in the lan-
guages we used in the pilot study, and Google Translate is 
likely to have been trained extensively in French, German, 
and Mandarin. Browser-based translation tools may not 
perform as well with languages that have a smaller Internet 
presence. Although multiple alternative tools are available 
for automatic translation (DeepL, Microsoft Translate, and 
ChatGPT), Google Translate was the only software used 
in this study. Although all these popular translation tools 
employ machine learning techniques (a subset of AI),27-29 
there is currently a lot of public interest in ChatGPT and 
future advancements in similar large language models. 
Recent studies suggest that the current iteration of ChatGPT 
does not yet consistently outperform Google Translate or 
Microsoft Translator, and performs worse with less widely 
spoken languages.30 Although there is a lot of excitement 
about the future of ChatGPT in many fields, it is still reliant 
on the availability of training data.
 The results of this study may not easily be extrapolated 
to other publication types because we included only short 
text-based summaries. These were easy to handle using 
Google Translate, but this approach may be less practical 
for longer texts or articles in which a lot of the information is 
embedded in figures and tables. Although Google Translate 
does have capabilities for translating whole documents, the 
complexity of the document formatting can affect how suc-
cessful this is.
 Finally, a survey-based approach was used to assess 
translation quality. The quality assessment could be 
expanded to also include the reverse translation method, in 

which Google-translated abstracts and PLSs are translated 
back to English by a translator who has no knowledge of the 
original text, with the results compared with the original to 
check for equivalence of the wording.
 Although there has been recent focus on making  
scientific information more widely available, there remains 
a gap for non-English speakers. Ideally, professional trans-
lations would be available for all English-language scientific 
research, but this is not a practical solution. It is possible that, 
with technological advances, it will get easier for non-English 
speakers to search for, find, translate, and understand liter-
ature originally published in English. In the meantime, we 
propose that the publishing community should increase its 
commitment to PLSs, including improving their discover-
ability (eg, ensuring correct indexing on PubMed). Wider 
availability and accessibility of these lay-friendly sum-
maries should not only provide an accessibility benefit to 
English-speaking readers but should also improve access for 
non-English speakers by enhancing the accuracy of transla-
tions using browser-based tools.

Acknowledgements
We thank Nicolas Bertheleme, Claudia Brockmeyer, Shufei 
Song, and Maša Švent who were the language review-
ers involved in the study. Development of this article was 
jointly funded by Ipsen and Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd.

Author declarations and disclosures: All authors made sub-
stantial contributions to study conception/design, or acquisition/
analysis/interpretation of data; drafted the publication or revised 
it critically for important intellectual content; and gave their 
final approval of the publication. Claire Beeby is an employee of 
Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd; Eleanor J. Raynsford and Charles 
Pollitt are employees of Ipsen. Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd is a 
HealthScience Consultancy contracted to support Ipsen with 
medical communication and medical writing activities.

Author contact: claire.beeby@pharmagenesis.com

References
1.  Edgell C, Rosenberg A. Putting plain language summaries into 

perspective. Curr Med Res Opin. 2022;38(6):871-874. doi:10.1080/
03007995.2022.2058812

2.  Frank J, Foster R, Pagliari C. Open access publishing - noble 
intention, flawed reality. Soc Sci Med. 2023;317:115592. 
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115592

3.  Piwowar H, Priem J, Larivière V, et al. The state of OA: A large-scale 
analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. 
PeerJ. 2018;6:e4375. doi:10.7717/peerj.4375

4.  Bahji A, Acion L, Laslett AM, Adinoff B. Exclusion of the 
non-English-speaking world from the scientific literature: 
recommendations for change for addiction journals 
and publishers. Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2022;40(1):6-13. 
doi:10.1177/14550725221102227

5.  Rostadmo M, Strømme S, Nylenna M, et al. How well do 
doctors understand a scientific article in English when it is not 

http://www.amwajournal.org
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2022.2058812
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2022.2058812
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362200898X?via%3Dihub
https://peerj.com/articles/4375/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14550725221102227


AMWAJournal.org     19Science Without Borders – Can Translation Tools Bridge the Language Gap?

their first language? A randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 
2021;11(6):e043444. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043444

6.  Gulbrandsen P, Schroeder TV, Milerad J, Nylenna M. Paper 
or screen, mother tongue or English: which is better? A 
randomized trial. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2851-2853. doi:10.1001/
jama.287.21.2851

7.  Fung ICH. Open access for the non-English-speaking world: 
overcoming the language barrier. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 
2008;5(1):1. doi:10.1186/1742-7622-5-1

8.  Steigerwald E, Ramírez-Castañeda V, Brandt DYC, et al. 
Overcoming language barriers in academia: machine translation 
tools and a vision for a multilingual future. BioScience. 
2022;72(10):988-998. doi:10.1093/biosci/biac062

9.  Beeby C, Thomlinson V, Raynsford E, Pollitt C. P05 - accessibility 
of scientific information for non-English speakers: using browser-
based tools to translate plain language summaries (PLS) and 
abstracts. Presented at: 2023 European Meeting of ISMPP; January 
24-25, 2023; London, United Kingdom.

10. Beeby C, Thomlinson V, Raynsford E, Pollitt C. P18 - accessibility 
of scientific information for non-English speakers: using browser-
based tools to translate plain language summaries (PLS) and 
abstracts. Paper presented at: 19th Annual Meeting of ISMPP; 
April 24-26, 2023; Washington, DC.

11. Kelley RK, Mollon P, Blanc JF, et al. Comparative efficacy of 
cabozantinib and regorafenib for advanced hepatocellular 
carcinoma. Adv Ther. 2020;37(6):2678-2695. doi:10.1007/s12325-
020-01378-y

12. Danchenko N, Johnston KM, Whalen J. The cost-effectiveness of 
abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport) and onabotulinumtoxina (Botox) 
for managing spasticity of the upper and lower limbs, and cervical 
dystonia. J Med Econ. 2022;25(1):919-929. doi:10.1080/13696998.2
022.2092354

13. Paz-Ares L, Spigel DR, Chen Y, et al. RESILIENT part 1: a phase 
2 dose-exploration and dose-expansion study of second-line 
liposomal irinotecan in adults with small cell lung cancer. Cancer. 
2022;128(9):1801-1811. doi: 10.1002/cncr.34123

14. Turner-Stokes L, Fheodoroff K, Jacinto J, et al. The spasticity-
related quality of life 6-dimensions instrument in upper-limb 
spasticity: part I development and responsiveness. J Rehabil Med. 
2022;54:jrm00244. doi:10.2340/jrm.v53.690

15. Adelman DT, Van Genechten D, Megret CM, Truong Thanh XT, 
Hand P, Martin WA. Co-creation of a lanreotide autogel/depot 
syringe for the treatment of acromegaly and neuroendocrine 
tumours through collaborative human factor studies. Adv Ther. 
2019;36(12):3409-3423. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-01112-3

16. Desktop browser market share worldwide. StatsCounter. 
Published 2023. Accessed May 23, 2023. https://gs.statcounter.
com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide

17. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch 
Psychol. 1932;22(140):5-55.

18. Rosenberg A, Baróniková S, Feighery L, et al. Open Pharma 
recommendations for plain language summaries of peer-
reviewed medical journal publications. Curr Med Res Opin. 
2021;37(11):2015-2016. doi:10.1080/03007995.2021.1971185

19. Dormer L, Walker J. Plain language summary of publication 
articles: helping disseminate published scientific articles to 
patients. Future Oncol. 2020;16(25):1873-1874. doi:10.2217/fon-
2020-0784

20. Modi S. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in previously treated HER2-
positive metastatic breast cancer: plain language summary of the 
DESTINY-Breast01 study. Future Oncol. 2021;17(26):3415-3424. 
doi:10.2217/fon-2021-0427

21. Oaknin A, Tinker AV, Gilbert L, et al. Clinical activity and safety of 
the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody dostarlimab for patients with 
recurrent or advanced dMMR endometrial cancer. Future Oncol. 
2021;17(29):3781-3785. doi:10.2217/fon-2021-0598

22. Fizazi K, Blue I, Nowak JT. Darolutamide and survival in 
nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer: a patient 
perspective of the ARAMIS trial. Future Oncol. 2021;17(14):1699-
1707. doi:10.2217/fon-2020-1291

23. Savarirayan R, Irving M, Hoover-Fong J, et al. Vosoritide treatment 
accelerates bone growth in children with achondroplasia. Future 
Rare Dis. 2021;1(3):FRD14. doi:10.2217/frd-2021-0009

24. Plain language summaries. Future Medicine Group. 
Accessed May 5, 2023. https://www.futuremedicine.com/
plainlanguagesummaries

25. PubMed user guide. PubMed. Published 2023. Accessed May 5, 
2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/help/

26. Schuers M, Joulakian M, Kerdelhué G, et al. Lost in translation? 
A multilingual query builder improves the quality of PubMed 
queries: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Inform Decis 
Mak. 2017;17(1):94. doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0490-9

27. Translate and communicate with ease. DeepL. Accessed May 5, 
2023. https://www.deepl.com/en/why-deepl-pro

28. Neural machine translation. Microsoft. Accessed May 5, 2023. 
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/neural-
machine-translation/

29. A neural network for machine translation, at production scale. 
Google Research. Published September 27, 2016. Accessed May 5, 
2023. https://ai.googleblog.com/2016/09/a-neural-network-for-
machine.html

30. Peng K, Ding L, Zhong Q, et al. Towards making the most of 
ChatGPT for machine translation. arXiv. Preprint posted online 
March 24, 2023. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.13780

http://www.amwajournal.org
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/6/e043444
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/194968
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/194968
https://ete-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-7622-5-1
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/72/10/988/6653151
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-020-01378-y
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-020-01378-y
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13696998.2022.2092354
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13696998.2022.2092354
https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.34123
https://medicaljournalssweden.se/jrm/article/view/690
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-019-01112-3
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2021.1971185
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/fon-2020-0784
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/fon-2020-0784
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/fon-2021-0427
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/fon-2021-0598
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/fon-2020-1291
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/frd-2021-0009
https://www.futuremedicine.com/plainlanguagesummaries
https://www.futuremedicine.com/plainlanguagesummaries
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/help/
https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-017-0490-9
https://www.deepl.com/en/why-deepl-pro
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/neural-machine-translation/
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/neural-machine-translation/
https://ai.googleblog.com/2016/09/a-neural-network-for-machine.html
https://ai.googleblog.com/2016/09/a-neural-network-for-machine.html
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.13780



