ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Evaluation of Prompt Design and Internal Reasoning in Chatbot-Based Medical History Taking: Simulation 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A persistent discrepancy exists between patient-reported information and physician documentation. While conversational agents have been developed to collect medical histories prior to consultations, existing evaluations have largely focused on diagnostic accuracy or user satisfaction rather than on the completeness and clinical relevance of the information collected. There remains a need to assess the extent to which clinically relevant information is captured through chatbot-based interviews, and to understand how model configurations and instructional strategies influence this coverage. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which a chatbot can obtain clinically useful patient history information, and to examine how prompt detail and internal reasoning influence information coverage during chatbot-based medical interviews. Methods: We developed a medical history-taking chatbot using the Qwen3-14B-Instruct model and evaluated 4 configurations in a 2×2 factorial design: detailed and thinking mode, detailed and nonthinking mode, minimal and thinking mode, and minimal and nonthinking mode. These configurations were compared against a rule-based system baseline (choice mode) using 66 standardized primary care clinical cases, with simulated patients interacting with the chatbot according to predefined case scripts. Information coverage (%) was assessed using a checklist inspired by Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) frameworks. Three physicians independently evaluated transcript coverage, with interrater agreement assessed using full agreement rates and Fleiss κ. For the 4 LLM configurations, coverage was analyzed using 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA to examine the effects of prompt detail, internal reasoning, and their interaction. All 5 configurations, including the rule-based baseline, were additionally compared using 1-way repeated-measures ANOVA with post hoc 2-tailed paired Results: Interrater agreement was substantial (Fleiss κ=0.75). Across all 66 simulated cases, information coverage differed significantly among configurations ( Conclusions: In this controlled, simulated setting, the detailed prompt with a thinking mode achieved the highest overall checklist-based information coverage. The findings suggest that combining structured clinical prompts with internal reasoning may improve the completeness of chatbot-collected patient histories. Further research is needed to evaluate its impact on clinical documentation, workflow integration, and real-world usefulness.
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.