Assessing human post-editing efforts to compare the performance of three machine translation engines for english to Russian translation of cochrane plain language health information: Results of a randomised comparison

Abstract

Cochrane produces independent research to improve healthcare decisions. It translates its research summaries into different languages to enable wider access, relying largely on volunteers. Machine translation (MT) could facilitate efficiency in Cochrane’s low-resource environment. We compared three off-the-shelf machine translation engines (MTEs)-DeepL, Google Translate and Microsoft Translator-for Russian translations of Cochrane plain language summaries (PLSs) by assessing the quantitative human post-editing effort within an established translation workflow and quality assurance process. 30 PLSs each were pre-translated with one of the three MTEs. Ten volunteer translators post-edited nine randomly assigned PLSs each-three per MTE-in their usual translation system, Memsource. Two editors performed a second editing step. Memsource’s Machine Translation Quality Estimation (MTQE) feature provided an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered estimate of how much editing would be required for each PLS, and the analysis feature calculated the amount of human editing after each editing step. Google Translate performed the best with highest average quality estimates for its initial MT output, and the lowest amount of human post-editing. DeepL performed slightly worse, and Microsoft Translator worst. Future developments in MT research and the associated industry may change our results.