ArticleJMIR AI2026
Evaluating Large Language Model-Generated Clinical Summaries Through a Dual-Perspective Framework: Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by patients and families to interpret complex medical documentation, yet most evaluations focus only on clinician-judged accuracy. In this study, 50 pediatric cardiac intensive care unit notes were summarized using GPT-4o mini and reviewed by both physicians and parents, who rated readability, clinical fidelity, and helpfulness. There were important discrepancies between parents and clinicians in the realm of helpfulness, along with important insights by clinicians assessing clinical accuracy and parents assessing readability. This study highlights the need for dual-perspective frameworks that balance clinical precision with patient understanding.
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.