ArticleHealthcare informatics research2025
Large Language Models for Pre-mediation Counseling in Medical Disputes: A Comparative Evaluation against Human Experts.
Article in Healthcare informatics research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAssessing medical disputes requires both medical and legal expertise, presenting challenges for patients seeking clarity regarding potential malpractice claims. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a chatbot based on a chain-of-thought pipeline using a large language model (LLM) for providing medical dispute counseling and compare its performance with responses from human experts.
methodsRetrospective counseling cases (n = 279) were collected from the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency's website, from which 50 cases were randomly selected as a validation dataset. The Claude 3.5 Sonnet model processed each counseling request through a five-step chain-of-thought pipeline. Thirty-eight experts evaluated the chatbot's responses against the original human expert responses, rating them across four dimensions on a 5-point Likert scale. Statistical analyses were conducted using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
resultsThe chatbot significantly outperformed human experts in quality of information (p < 0.001), understanding and reasoning (p < 0.001), and overall satisfaction (p < 0.001). It also demonstrated a stronger tendency to produce opinion-driven content (p < 0.001). Despite generally high scores, evaluators noted specific instances where the chatbot encountered difficulties.
conclusionsA chain-of-thought-based LLM chatbot shows promise for enhancing the quality of medical dispute counseling, outperforming human experts across key evaluation metrics. Future research should address inaccuracies resulting from legal and contextual variability, investigate patient acceptance, and further refine the chatbot's performance in domain-specific applications.
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.