Abstracts or full text? Evaluating input scope and computational efficiency in biomedical lay summarization
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, Özyeğin University, İstanbul, Türkiye · Department of Computer Engineering, Galatasaray University, İstanbul, Türkiye · Department of Artificial Intelligence and Data Engineering, Özyeğin University, İstanbul, Türkiye
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.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Train | Validation | Test | Prompt set | Few-shot samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| eLife | 4,066 (89.68%) | 241 (5.32%) | 227 (5.01%) | 25 | 3 |
| PLOS | 23,413 (89.73%) | 1,376 (5.27%) | 1,305 (5.00%) | 25 | 3 |
| Dataset | Avg. article tokens | Max. article tokens | Min. article tokens | Avg. abstract tokens | Abstract–article token overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| eLife | 14,046.1 | 38,940 | 3,020 | 217.39 | 21% |
| PLOS | 8,902.0 | 24,522 | 1,195 | 348.74 | 49% |
| Dataset | Setting | Model | Fine-tuning duration | Inference duration | Total duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| eLife | Abstract Zero-Shot | Qwen3.5-0.8B | – | 28 min 41 s | 28 min 41 s |
| eLife | Abstract One-Shot | Qwen3.5-0.8B | – | 35 min 12 s | 35 min 12 s |
| eLife | Abstract Three-Shot | Qwen3.5-0.8B | – | 48 min 58 s | 48 min 58 s |
| eLife | Full-Text Zero-Shot | Qwen3.5-0.8B | – | 1 h 19 min 11 s | 1 h 19 min 11 s |
| eLife | Full-Text One-Shot | Qwen3.5-0.8B | – | 1 h 31 min 56 s | 1 h 31 min 56 s |
| eLife | Full-Text Three-Shot | Qwen3.5-0.8B | – | 1 h 50 min 04 s | 1 h 50 min 04 s |
| Relevance | Readability | Factuality | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Setting | ROUGE | BLEU | METEOR | BERTScore | FKGL | DCRS | SMOG | CLI | SummaC | FENICE | LongDocFact | Mean |
| MobileLLM-Pro Abstract Fine-Tuning | 0.4052 | 0.1238 | 0.2257 | 0.8583 | 14.71 | 12.37 | 14.49 | 14.03 | 0.7654 | 0.9256 | 0.6234 | 0.7840 |
| Qwen Abstract Fine-Tuning | 0.2699 | 0.1119 | 0.2999 | 0.8633 | 13.86 | 11.77 | 14.89 | 17.11 | 0.7236 | 0.9249 | 0.7262 | 0.7262 |
| Qwen Full-Text Fine-Tuning | 0.4077 | 0.1197 | 0.1921 | 0.8448 | 14.66 | 13.39 | 15.34 | 15.95 | 0.7863 | 0.9482 | 0.5743 | 0.5526 |
| MobileLLM-Pro Full-Text Fine-Tuning | 0.0854 | 0.0090 | 0.1410 | 0.7919 | 16.31 | 11.79 | 15.19 | 15.35 | 0.7125 | 0.8067 | 0.5897 | 0.1671 |
| Relevance | Readability | Factuality | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Setting | ROUGE | BLEU | METEOR | BERTScore | FKGL | DCRS | SMOG | CLI | SummaC | FENICE | LongDocFact | Mean |
| MobileLLM-Pro Abstract Fine-Tuning | 0.3360 | 0.0797 | 0.1746 | 0.8378 | 12.21 | 10.99 | 12.20 | 14.38 | 0.8745 | 0.8634 | 0.6457 | 0.8149 |
| Qwen Abstract Fine-Tuning | 0.2357 | 0.0505 | 0.2482 | 0.8456 | 13.27 | 11.99 | 15.00 | 13.70 | 0.6669 | 0.7142 | 0.6295 | 0.5780 |
| Qwen Full-Text Fine-Tuning | 0.3483 | 0.0705 | 0.1638 | 0.8269 | 15.69 | 13.62 | 16.66 | 16.66 | 0.9911 | 0.9594 | 0.6001 | 0.4377 |
| MobileLLM-Pro Full-Text Fine-Tuning | 0.1098 | 0.0095 | 0.1331 | 0.7877 | 14.89 | 12.01 | 10.85 | 14.01 | 0.9032 | 0.8423 | 0.6055 | 0.3732 |
| Relevance | Readability | Factuality | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Setting | ROUGE | BLEU | METEOR | BERTScore | FKGL | DCRS | SMOG | CLI | SummaC | FENICE | LongDocFact | Mean |
| Qwen 3-Shot Abstract | 0.3471 | 0.0649 | 0.1678 | 0.8413 | 10.49 | 10.63 | 10.67 | 12.79 | 0.7712 | 0.8808 | 0.5930 | 0.6588 |
| MobileLLM-Pro 3-Shot Abstract | 0.3537 | 0.0812 | 0.1881 | 0.8417 | 13.14 | 11.31 | 12.37 | 14.98 | 0.8743 | 0.9246 | 0.5594 | 0.6108 |
| MobileLLM-Pro Abstract Fine-Tuning | 0.4052 | 0.1238 | 0.2257 | 0.8583 | 14.71 | 12.37 | 14.49 | 14.03 | 0.7654 | 0.9256 | 0.6234 | 0.5954 |
| Qwen Abstract Fine-Tuning | 0.2699 | 0.1119 | 0.2999 | 0.8633 | 13.86 | 11.77 | 14.89 | 17.11 | 0.7236 | 0.9249 | 0.7262 | 0.5890 |
| Qwen Full-Text Fine-Tuning | 0.4077 | 0.1197 | 0.1921 | 0.8448 | 14.66 | 13.39 | 15.34 | 15.95 | 0.7863 | 0.9482 | 0.5743 | 0.4659 |
| Relevance | Readability | Factuality | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Setting | ROUGE | BLEU | METEOR | BERTScore | FKGL | DCRS | SMOG | CLI | SummaC | FENICE | LongDocFact | Mean |
| MobileLLM-Pro Abstract Fine-Tuning | 0.3360 | 0.0797 | 0.1746 | 0.8378 | 12.21 | 10.99 | 12.20 | 14.38 | 0.8745 | 0.8634 | 0.6457 | 0.7472 |
| MobileLLM-Pro 3-Shot Abstract | 0.2929 | 0.0632 | 0.1535 | 0.8297 | 11.90 | 11.83 | 13.04 | 15.65 | 0.9054 | 0.9145 | 0.6585 | 0.6585 |
| Qwen 3-Shot Abstract | 0.3643 | 0.0605 | 0.1581 | 0.8373 | 10.56 | 11.06 | 11.75 | 12.69 | 0.7938 | 0.6995 | 0.5901 | 0.6372 |
| Qwen Abstract Fine-Tuning | 0.2357 | 0.0505 | 0.2482 | 0.8456 | 13.27 | 11.99 | 15.00 | 13.70 | 0.6669 | 0.7142 | 0.6295 | 0.5303 |
| Qwen Full-Text Fine-Tuning | 0.3483 | 0.0705 | 0.1638 | 0.8269 | 15.69 | 13.62 | 16.66 | 16.66 | 0.9911 | 0.9594 | 0.6001 | 0.4452 |
| Relevance | Readability | Factuality | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Setting | ROUGE | BLEU | METEOR | BERTScore | FKGL | DCRS | SMOG | CLI | SummaC | FENICE | LongDocFact | Mean |
| Qwen 3-Shot Abstract | 0.3471 | 0.0649 | 0.1678 | 0.8413 | 10.49 | 10.63 | 10.67 | 12.79 | 0.7712 | 0.8808 | 0.5930 | 0.7366 |
| Qwen 1-Shot Abstract | 0.3351 | 0.0700 | 0.1789 | 0.8426 | 10.73 | 10.73 | 10.74 | 12.65 | 0.6628 | 0.8788 | 0.5965 | 0.7364 |
| Qwen 0-Shot Abstract | 0.3508 | 0.0695 | 0.1828 | 0.8419 | 11.25 | 10.72 | 10.77 | 13.30 | 0.5204 | 0.8890 | 0.5953 | 0.7060 |
| MobileLLM-Pro 3-Shot Abstract | 0.3537 | 0.0812 | 0.1881 | 0.8417 | 13.14 | 11.31 | 12.37 | 14.98 | 0.8743 | 0.9246 | 0.5594 | 0.6954 |
| MobileLLM-Pro 1-Shot Abstract | 0.3497 | 0.0860 | 0.1909 | 0.8455 | 13.31 | 11.48 | 12.76 | 15.10 | 0.8545 | 0.9133 | 0.5657 | 0.6909 |
| Relevance | Readability | Factuality | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Setting | ROUGE | BLEU | METEOR | BERTScore | FKGL | DCRS | SMOG | CLI | SummaC | FENICE | LongDocFact | Mean |
| Qwen 3-Shot Abstract | 0.3643 | 0.0605 | 0.1581 | 0.8373 | 10.56 | 11.06 | 11.75 | 12.69 | 0.7938 | 0.6995 | 0.5901 | 0.7441 |
| Qwen 1-Shot Abstract | 0.3404 | 0.0658 | 0.1514 | 0.8372 | 10.87 | 11.50 | 12.72 | 13.60 | 0.7167 | 0.7364 | 0.6028 | 0.6639 |
| MobileLLM-Pro 3-Shot Abstract | 0.2929 | 0.0632 | 0.1535 | 0.8297 | 11.90 | 11.83 | 13.04 | 15.65 | 0.9054 | 0.9145 | 0.6585 | 0.6589 |
| Qwen 0-Shot Abstract | 0.3052 | 0.0623 | 0.1527 | 0.8359 | 10.68 | 11.18 | 11.51 | 12.80 | 0.5161 | 0.7093 | 0.5776 | 0.6319 |
| Qwen 1-Shot | 0.3967 | 0.0786 | 0.1636 | 0.8173 | 12.10 | 12.00 | 14.28 | 14.99 | 0.8351 | 0.9472 | 0.4965 | 0.6230 |
Text Summarization
Text summarization develops methods for condensing documents while preserving the information, perspective, and evidence readers need.
See all 142 papers