ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Comparative Analysis of Japanese Clinical Note Styles Between Physicians and Large Language Models Using Identical Psychiatric Cases: Quantitative Text Analysis.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A generative two-stage semantic intermediary framework for explainable mental health early warning in higher education.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
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
Background: With the rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in clinical documentation, it is unclear whether LLMs can faithfully reproduce specialty-specific writing styles and clinically meaningful documentation patterns observed in expert notes, particularly in psychiatry. Objective: This study aims to systematically compare the narrative styles of human physicians and LLMs when documenting identical psychiatric cases and to evaluate the extent to which LLMs replicate specialty-specific documentation patterns. Methods: We constructed 2 standardized outpatient scenarios in Japanese (major depressive disorder and schizophrenia) and collected 134 initial notes in Japanese authored by psychiatrists and internists, alongside notes generated by 4 LLMs simulating each specialty. We conducted lexical, syntactic, semantic, and topic-level analyses using Bilingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU), Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation-Longest Common Subsequence (ROUGE-L), BERTScore, and Translation Edit Rate (TER), complemented by redundancy metrics and medical term variation analyses. Results: LLM-generated notes were significantly longer, more repetitive, and lexically less diverse than human-authored notes. TER-based clustering revealed a uniform, template-like writing style in LLMs, diverging from the flexible, context-sensitive style of physicians. Topic modeling suggested that LLM-generated notes tended to rely on more abstract and generalized expressions, with less variation in the distribution and emphasis of documented clinical information. Conclusions: LLMs can mimic surface-level stylistic features but fall short in reproducing nuanced, context-dependent, diagnostically relevant content typical of expert clinical documentation. Future clinical use will require careful prompt design or fine-tuning to ensure narrative depth, lexical diversity, and clinical relevance.
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.