ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Deductively coding psychosocial autopsy interview data using a few-shot learning large language model.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative Artificial Intelligence for Qualitative Methods in Health Research: Rapid Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Review
- The use and methodological reporting of large language models in qualitative research: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Insights into middle-aged men (40-70) who died by suicide: a nationwide mixed methods study in the Netherlands.BMC public health · 2026Article
- A mixed-methods evaluation of a large-scale online gatekeeper training to prevent youth suicides in the Netherlands.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- A generative AI teaching assistant for personalized learning in medical education.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Mixed-methods psychosocial autopsy study of suicide in young and middle-aged individuals in the Netherlands.BMJ public health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Psychosocial autopsy is a retrospective study of suicide, aimed to identify emerging themes and psychosocial risk factors. It typically relies heavily on qualitative data from interviews or medical documentation. However, qualitative research has often been scrutinized for being prone to bias and is notoriously time- and cost-intensive. Therefore, the current study aimed to investigate if a Large Language Model (LLM) can be feasibly integrated with qualitative research procedures, by evaluating the performance of the model in deductively coding and coherently summarizing interview data obtained in a psychosocial autopsy. Methods: Data from 38 semi-structured interviews conducted with individuals bereaved by the suicide of a loved one was deductively coded by qualitative researchers and a server-installed LLAMA3 large language model. The model performance was evaluated in three tasks: (1) binary classification of coded segments, (2) independent classification using a sliding window approach, and (3) summarization of coded data. Intercoder agreement scores were calculated using Cohen's Kappa, and the LLM's summaries were qualitatively assessed using the Constant Comparative Method. Results: The results showed that the LLM achieved substantial agreement with the researchers for the binary classification (accuracy: 0.84) and the sliding window task (accuracy: 0.67). The performance had large variability across codes. LLM summaries were typically rich enough for subsequent analysis by the researcher, with around 80% of the summaries being rated independently by two researchers as 'adequate' or 'good.' Emerging themes in the qualitative assessment of the summaries included unsolicited elaboration and hallucination. Conclusion: State-of-the-art LLMs show great potential to support researchers in deductively coding complex interview data, which would alleviate the investment of time and resources. Integrating models with qualitative research procedures can facilitate near real-time monitoring. Based on the findings, we recommend a collaborative model, whereby the LLM's deductive coding is complemented by review, inductive coding and further interpretation by a researcher. Future research may aim to replicate the findings in different contexts and evaluate models with a larger context size.
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.