Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41003894›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025

Artificial intelligence and the future of patient-centered outcomes.

Kevin P Weinfurt, Bryce B Reeve

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Kevin P WeinfurtCenter for Health Measurement, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. kevin.weinfurt@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0624-7448
Bryce B ReeveCenter for Health Measurement, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTerheyden et al. recently described a compelling vision for large language model-enabled patient-reported outcome measures (LLM-PROMs). MAIN TEXT: We support Terheyden et al.'s vision and offer complementary observations about the potential for generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in assessing patient-centered outcomes. GenAI has the potential to improve the quality and efficiency of developing traditional PROMs and collecting patient experience data. Traditional PROMs rely on standardized questions and responses, which may introduce ambiguity about the health concept being assessed. Yet, interviewers who are trained in the meaning of the concepts can tailor questions to the respondent's experience and conversation style and have a back-and-forth clarification of meaning to ensure that both the interviewer's and respondent's meanings are aligned. The shortcoming of this approach is that it cannot be done at scale with human interviewers. However, trained GenAI interviewers could make such an assessment a reality for large samples of patients. The technology is already available to train GenAI interviewers in interview technique, the intent of each item, and a consistent approach toward coding the respondent's answer based on the conversation.

conclusionThe health outcomes research field should actively inquire into what patient experience data can be collected via GenAI and rigorously evaluate the quality of the assessments obtained.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansPatient-Centered CareGenerative artificial intelligencePatient-reported outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID41003894
PMCPMC12474825

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.