ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Augmenting medical data interpretation with Large Language Models (LLMs): a comparative analysis of patient empowerment, information processing, and technology acceptance.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical data interpretation traditionally relies on healthcare professionals as intermediaries, which can limit patient autonomy and engagement. Large Language Models (LLMs) present an opportunity to transform this paradigm by enabling direct patient access to AI-generated interpretations; however, comparative research on their effectiveness across different medical data types and communication modalities remains limited. This study explores how direct LLM-augmented interpretation of medical data, in which patients use an AI system to receive real-time explanations of laboratory and radiological results, compares with healthcare professional-led interpretation across different data modalities, with particular attention to patient comprehension, empowerment, and technology acceptance.
methodsUsing a mixed-methods approach with a within-subjects experimental design, 45 demographically diverse participants experienced six scenarios: blood work and medical imaging interpretations delivered via (1) healthcare professional phone consultation, (2) in-person consultation, or (3) LLM interaction through a custom-configured ChatGPT-4o interface (Medical Explainer AI) designed to provide plain-language explanations of findings, highlight abnormal values, contextualize clinical significance, explain medical terminology, and adapt explanation complexity based on user feedback.
resultsLLM interaction significantly enhanced diagnostic comprehension (mean difference = 1.3 compared to phone consultation, p < 0.001), reduced cognitive load, increased perceived control, and improved time efficiency. Healthcare professional-led interpretation, particularly in-person, maintained advantages in fostering trust, reducing anxiety, and enhancing confidence in decision-making. The benefits of LLM interaction were more pronounced for blood work than for medical imaging interpretation. Age, education level, and health literacy significantly moderated the effectiveness of different interpretation methods.
conclusionsLLMs offer complementary rather than replacement capabilities for medical data interpretation, excelling in enhancing comprehension, control, and efficiency, while healthcare professionals provide superior relational value through trust, confidence, and emotional support. Implementation strategies should leverage the strengths of both approaches, carefully considering data complexity and patient characteristics to maximize benefits while ensuring equitable access.
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.