ArticleScientific reports2025
Analyzing patient perspectives with large language models: a cross-sectional study of sentiment and thematic classification on exception from informed consent.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05121324 (Pediatric Dose Optimization for Seizures in EMS), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Pediatric Dose Optimization for Seizures in EMS (PediDOSE)
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Local LLM-based sentiment analysis of emotional patterns in complex-to-manage and treatment-resistant psoriatic arthritis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in pituitary surgery: the path to clinical solutions.Endocrine-related cancer · 2026Review
- Exploiting survey and online patient experience comments in general practice: validating a fine-tuned language model for automatic sentiment analysis.Family practice · 2026Article
- Large language models for thematic analysis in healthcare research: A blinded mixed-methods comparison with human analysts.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Visual WetlandBirds Dataset: Bird Species Identification and Behavior Recognition in Videos.Scientific data · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) can improve text analysis efficiency in healthcare. This study explores the application of LLMs to analyze patient perspectives within the exception from informed consent (EFIC) process, which waives consent in emergency research. Our objective is to assess whether LLMs can analyze patient perspectives in EFIC interviews with performance comparable to human reviewers. We analyzed 102 EFIC community interviews from 9 sites, each with 46 questions, as part of the Pediatric Dose Optimization for Seizures in Emergency Medical Services study. We evaluated 5 LLMs, including GPT-4, to assess sentiment polarity on a 5-point scale and classify responses into predefined thematic classes. Three human reviewers conducted parallel analyses, with agreement measured by Cohen's Kappa and classification accuracy. Polarity scores between LLM and human reviewers showed substantial agreement (Cohen's kappa: 0.69, 95% CI 0.61-0.76), with major discrepancies in only 4.7% of responses. LLM achieved high thematic classification accuracy (0.868, 95% CI 0.853-0.881), comparable to inter-rater agreement among human reviewers (0.867, 95% CI 0.836-0.901). LLMs enabled large-scale visual analysis, comparing response statistics across sites, questions, and classes. LLMs efficiently analyzed patient perspectives in EFIC interviews, showing substantial sentiment assessment and thematic classification performance. However, occasional underperformance suggests LLMs should complement, not replace, human judgment. Future work should evaluate LLM integration in EFIC to enhance efficiency, reduce subjectivity, and support accurate patient perspective analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.