Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40732431›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Synthetic Patient-Physician Conversations Simulated by Large Language Models: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation.

Syed Ali Haider, Srinivasagam Prabha, Cesar Abraham Gomez-Cabello, Sahar Borna, Ariana Genovese, Maissa Trabilsy, Bernardo G Collaco, Nadia G Wood, Sanjay Bagaria, Cui Tao and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Syed Ali HaiderDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-5621-2861
Srinivasagam PrabhaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Cesar Abraham Gomez-CabelloDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Sahar BornaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Ariana GenoveseDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Maissa TrabilsyDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Bernardo G CollacoDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3845-2646
Nadia G WoodDepartment of Radiology AI IT, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2685-6427
Sanjay BagariaDivision of Surgical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Cui TaoDepartment of Artificial Intelligence and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4267-1924
Antonio Jorge ForteDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2004-7538

Funding

Eric Schmidt Fund, Dalio Philanthropies, Gerstner Philanthropies 000000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData accessibility remains a significant barrier in healthcare AI due to privacy constraints and logistical challenges. Synthetic data, which mimics real patient information while remaining both realistic and non-identifiable, offers a promising solution. Large Language Models (LLMs) create new opportunities to generate high-fidelity clinical conversations between patients and physicians. However, the value of this synthetic data depends on careful evaluation of its realism, accuracy, and practical relevance.

objectiveTo assess the performance of four leading LLMs: ChatGPT 4.5, ChatGPT 4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini Pro 2.5 in generating synthetic transcripts of patient-physician interactions in plastic surgery scenarios.

methodsEach model generated transcripts for ten plastic surgery scenarios. Transcripts were independently evaluated by three clinically trained raters using a seven-criterion rubric: Medical Accuracy, Realism, Persona Consistency, Fidelity, Empathy, Relevancy, and Usability. Raters were blinded to the model identity to reduce bias. Each was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, yielding 840 total evaluations. Descriptive statistics were computed, and a two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to test for differences across models and metrics. In addition, transcripts were analyzed using automated linguistic and content-based metrics.

resultsAll models achieved strong performance, with mean ratings exceeding 4.5 across all criteria. Gemini 2.5 Pro received mean scores (5.00 ± 0.00) in Medical Accuracy, Realism, Persona Consistency, Relevancy, and Usability. Claude 3.7 Sonnet matched the scores in Persona Consistency and Relevancy and led in Empathy (4.96 ± 0.18). ChatGPT 4.5 also achieved perfect scores in Relevancy, with high scores in Empathy (4.93 ± 0.25) and Usability (4.96 ± 0.18). ChatGPT 4o demonstrated consistently strong but slightly lower performance across most dimensions. ANOVA revealed no statistically significant differences across models (F(3, 6) = 0.85,

conclusionsLeading LLMs can generate medically accurate, emotionally appropriate synthetic dialogues suitable for educational and research use. Despite high performance, demographic homogeneity in generated patients highlights the need for improved diversity and bias mitigation in model outputs. These findings support the cautious, context-aware integration of LLM-generated dialogues into medical training, simulation, and research.

Indexed as

LanguagePhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansCommunicationHumansLarge Language Modelsclinical communicationlarge language modelsmedical consultationsmedical simulationpatient–physician interactionsynthetic data

Identifiers

PMID40732431
PMCPMC12298718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.