ArticleCureus2026
The Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Analysis of Qualitative Data Compared With Human-Led Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has been widely adopted across multiple fields and is beginning to be integrated into research, specifically in qualitative and mixed-methods designs. Currently, GenAI can be used for data familiarization and analysis. However, approaches that integrate GenAI with human analysis are still relatively new, and no studies in medical education have explored this approach. The overarching purpose of this study is to compare GenAI-led and human-led thematic analyses of qualitative data and to explore strategies that can enhance GenAI-led thematic analysis, thereby providing insights into how GenAI and human-led analyses can complement each other. Methods A GenAI platform (Microsoft 365 Copilot; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, USA) was used to conduct reflexive thematic analysis and generate themes through a qualitative research dataset that includes 23 interview transcripts, whereby data were collected in 2024. The GenAI analysis was conducted through an iterative process of exploring the functions of Copilot, optimizing data input, and investigating prompting strategies. The quality of the GenAI analysis was explored by comparing its output to the human-led analysis. Results Overall, we found that, through effective prompting strategies, Copilot was able to create a thematic table, providing a comprehensive view and summary of the data. However, at times, Copilot could not use the entirety of a large prompt. Additionally, through examining the Copilot-generated and human-generated codebooks, it was found that Copilot took a more interpretive analytical approach compared to the human-led analysis, which utilized a qualitative descriptive approach. Conclusion In conclusion, since the use of GenAI to support qualitative analysis is new, we caution readers to explore the functions of the GenAI platform they use and understand the prompting strategies that yield the optimal analytical approach and output for their objectives. Specifically, it is important to reflect on the types of qualitative analysis that GenAI can support and to consider reflexivity and potential biases throughout the research process.
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.