ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Multimodule Human-Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Pipeline for Large Language Model-Assisted Thematic Analysis Across Digital Health Interview Studies: Comparative Evaluation Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQualitative thematic analysis is widely used in health research to examine patient experiences and inform the refinement of digital health interventions, but it is time- and labor-intensive. Large language models (LLMs) may help accelerate this process, yet their performance may depend not only on the model itself but also on how the analytic workflow is structured. Current evidence remains limited on how different LLMs perform across multistage thematic analysis workflows and across multiple health-related qualitative datasets.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate a modular human-artificial intelligence (AI) collaboration pipeline for LLM-assisted thematic analysis and compare how model choice and workflow strategy influence alignment between AI-generated and human-generated themes across 3 qualitative health studies.
methodsThe framework was applied to analyze deidentified semistructured interview transcripts from 3 completed qualitative health studies involving patients with interstitial lung disease, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Three LLMs were compared: Gemini (Gemini 3 Pro), ChatGPT (GPT-5.2-thinking), and Opus (version 4.6). The workflow separated analysis into code extraction, code combination, and theme generation, and 5 strategies were tested. AI-generated themes were embedded using sentence-t5-xxl and compared with human-generated themes using cosine similarity after alignment with Hungarian and Greedy matching. Runtime and output-format consistency were also examined.
resultsOutput volume differed substantially by model. Gemini generated the fewest codes and themes, while ChatGPT showed a similar but higher output ceiling. Opus produced the largest and most variable codebooks and theme sets. Across the 3 studies, Opus showed the strongest and most consistent alignment with human-generated themes, with the best cosine similarity scores observed in postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome-direct coding (mean 0.893, SD 0.041), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-direct grouping (mean 0.891, SD 0.027), and interstitial lung disease-L3 (mean 0.889, SD 0.032). ChatGPT was competitive in selected settings, whereas Gemini generally produced slightly lower similarity scores but had the shortest runtime. ChatGPT and Opus also showed better formatting consistency and workflow usability than Gemini.
conclusionsA modular human-AI pipeline can support thematic analysis across multiple digital health interview studies, but performance depends strongly on both model choice and workflow design. Opus produced the most consistently human-aligned themes, while Gemini and ChatGPT showed different trade-offs in speed, fidelity, and usability. These findings support the use of LLMs as structured, human-supervised analytic assistants rather than replacements for qualitative researchers.
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.