ArticleQualitative health research2026
Human Analysis vs. Artificial Intelligence: Analyzing of Qualitative Medical Students' Narratives.
Article in Qualitative health research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative Artificial Intelligence for Qualitative Methods in Health Research: Rapid Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Review
- Large Language Model-Assisted Thematic Coding in Medical Education Research: Comparative Methodological Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Breaking bad news with reflective AI virtual experience (BRAVE): development and evaluation of a generative AI-based simulation tool.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reflective narratives contain meaningful information about medical students' experiences and environments and are a rich source for qualitative analysis. However, analyzing narratives to learn about their content is expensive in terms of time and money. Recently developed artificial intelligence-based tools may help ease the analysis process. This study explored the potential of large language models (LLMs) to facilitate narrative text analysis. The narratives were written by medical students on their observations and reflections on medical encounters in which bad news was delivered. These narratives are challenging for analysis due to their semi-structured nature and medical and emotional content. We compared a former analysis process done manually versus the ability of LLMs to analyze these narratives, across different categories, including contextual (e.g., demographics) and thematic analysis. Our results showed that the LLM effectively processed data and followed formatting requirements. However, the LLM's performance varied across different categories, showing closer alignment with human analysis in straightforward categories (e.g., age), while struggling with more nuanced aspects of the narratives (e.g., assessing surprise). Ambiguities and complexities in the narratives posed significant challenges for the LLM, limiting its interpretive accuracy needed in such cases. The findings suggest that LLMs could complement human analysis, particularly in extracting explicitly mentioned contextual information, thereby enhancing the efficiency of the analysis process. The research highlights the need for further investigation into the capabilities of LLMs, pointing toward a future where the LLM and human qualitative researchers work in synergy to manage the demand for a timely and accurate narrative 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.