ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
What emotions reveal about patient safety: GPT-4-based sentiment and emotion analysis of 11056 German CIRS medical reports (2005-2024).
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCritical incident reporting systems (CIRS) collect narrative reports on medical errors, but emotional signals within these reports, potential indicators of perceived risk and systemic weakness, are rarely examined. This cross-sectional study applied large language model-based sentiment analysis to explore how emotional expression in CIRS data may support artificial intelligence-enhanced patient safety monitoring.
methodsWe analysed 11 056 anonymised German incident reports submitted between 2005 and 2024 using GPT-4 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4,
resultsNegative sentiment dominated (95.6%, 95% CI 94.9% to 96.2%). Fear (mean=0.63, SD=0.21) and frustration (mean=0.59, SD=0.19) were most prevalent. Emergency care settings showed higher fear (p<0.05) and guilt (p<0.001). Reports with strong emotional expression, especially fear, guilt and sadness, were less likely to receive formal feedback (43.1% (95% CI 41.7% to 44.5%) vs 48.1% (95% CI 46.5% to 49.7%); absolute difference=5.0 percentage points (95% CI 2.7 to 7.3); p=0.001). DISCUSSION: Emotion intensity did not consistently correlate with harm severity but was linked to care context and systemic complexity. Emotion clusters reflected distinct clinical and organisational patterns, from acute emergencies to procedural failures.
conclusionEmotion-based analysis of incident reports provides insight into perceived burden and care context. Sentiment profiling may improve system interpretability and support emotion-sensitive safety culture and feedback. Leveraging large language models can reduce reviewer workload and enable more targeted triage of emotionally complex reports.
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.