ArticleResearch square2026
Decoding Clinician Authorial Style: A Style-Informed Pipeline for Clinical Document Summary Generation with Large Language Models.
Article in Research square, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) can automate clinical document summary generation. However, even clinically accurate outputs often fail to reflect individual clinicians' writing styles, leading to substantial post-editing. We examine this stylistic gap using a multi-author corpus of de-identified clinical summaries. We propose a style-informed generation framework that extracts clinician-specific stylistic features through LLM feedback and applies a Train→Generate paradigm to produce personalized clinical summaries. Conventional metrics (ROUGE, BERTScore, cosine similarity) largely failed to distinguish intra-author from inter-author writing patterns, while Jaro-Winkler and BLEU demonstrated limited sensitivity. Targeted LLM-guided feature extraction-emphasizing rhythm, narration, and sentence or list structure-improved authorship classification up to 73% of accuracy. In blinded clinician A/B testing, GPT-4-generated drafts were preferred less often than original notes, whereas the Gemini 2.5 Pro pipeline produced drafts preferred at rates comparable to, and in some cases exceeding, clinician-authored summaries. While inherent hallucination risks were noted, they were mitigated via high-fidelity prompt engineering and explicit adherence to source-only data constraints. These results suggest that style-informed generation can reduce the style gap and produce clinically acceptable clinical summaries that better align with the clinician's voice.
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.