ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2026
Leveraging Large Language Models to Summarize Data and Free-Text Comments From Resident Assessments.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 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
Background: Summarizing resident assessments for Clinical Competency Committee or mentoring meetings is challenging. This especially applies to raters' free-text comments, which often provide valuable feedback. Objective: To assess feasibility and accuracy of using a large language model (LLM) to label free-text comments as "Strengths" or "Areas for Improvement" from end-of-rotation assessments of residents. Methods: We performed a mixed-methods study of residents' end-of-rotation assessments completed between July 1, 2024 and June 30, 2025. Following data de-identification, we used a private (paid) LLM account (ChatGPT-4o) to compile numerical and label free-text ("Strengths," "Areas for Improvement") feedback. We assessed feasibility using time spent de-identifying data, time for LLMs to return labeled free-text comments, and LLM recall (ability to accurately extract/label free-text feedback). We performed 2 confirmatory trials (free LLMs: MS CoPilot, ChatGPT-4) to ascertain reproducibility. Two subject matter experts labeled free-text comments to determine LLM labeling accuracy. The study was performed in 2025. Results: Our dataset represented 277 individual assessments for 25 unique residents. Feasibility data demonstrated data de-identification time of ∼60 minutes and LLM processing/labeling times of <7 minutes per LLM. All LLMs consistently compiled all free-text entries, accurately labeling 59.7% of free-text comments. Human analysis of comments (476) identified 388 (81.5%) "Strengths" and 88 (18.5%) "Areas for Improvement." Of these, LLM recall was 67.8% for "Strengths" and 23.9% for "Areas for Improvement." Conclusions: We designed prompts that feasibly labeled end-of-rotation assessment free-text comments across 3 LLMs with recall for "Strengths" 2.5 times higher than recall for "Areas for Improvement."
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.