Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41894589›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2026

Comparative Analysis of Japanese Clinical Note Styles Between Physicians and Large Language Models Using Identical Psychiatric Cases: Quantitative Text Analysis.

Wataru Arihisa, Tomohiro Nishiyama, Shoko Wakamiya, Eiji Aramaki

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

4 authors.

Wataru ArihisaDepartment of Information Science, Graduate School of Science and Technology, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama-cho, Ikoma, 630-0192, Japan, 81 0743-72-5111.ORCID 0009-0000-4840-5443
Tomohiro NishiyamaDepartment of Information Science, Graduate School of Science and Technology, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama-cho, Ikoma, 630-0192, Japan, 81 0743-72-5111.ORCID 0000-0003-1538-8266
Shoko WakamiyaDepartment of Information Science, Graduate School of Science and Technology, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama-cho, Ikoma, 630-0192, Japan, 81 0743-72-5111.ORCID 0000-0002-9371-1340
Eiji AramakiDepartment of Information Science, Graduate School of Science and Technology, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama-cho, Ikoma, 630-0192, Japan, 81 0743-72-5111.ORCID 0000-0003-0201-3609

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

DocumentationLarge Language ModelsPhysiciansPsychiatryHumansJapanclinical documentationlarge language modelsmedical informaticsnatural language processingpsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID41894589
PMCPMC13027678

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.