Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42602997›Full record

ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2026

Leveraging Large Language Models to Summarize Data and Free-Text Comments From Resident Assessments.

Carisa M Cooney, Rebecca Slattery, Damon S Cooney, Scott D Lifchez, Julie E Park

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Carisa M Cooneyis an Associate Professor and Director of Education Innovation, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5475-206X
Rebecca Slatteryis Program Manager, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9068-9371
Damon S Cooneyis an Associate Professor, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2786-287X
Scott D Lifchezis Interim Chair, Program Director, and a Professor, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0703-6251
Julie E Parkis Division Chief, Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Ahuja Medical Center, Division Chief, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Cleveland Medical Center, and a Professor, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementInternship and ResidencyLarge Language ModelsFeasibility StudiesHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID42602997
PMCPMC13475740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.