ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Voice-Enabled Virtual Patients for Interactive Training in Standardized Clinical Assessment: Mixed Methods Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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: Training mental health clinicians to conduct standardized clinical assessments is challenging due to a lack of scalable, realistic practice opportunities. Traditional methods often fail to prepare trainees for the variability and complexity of real-world patient interactions, potentially impacting data quality in clinical trials. This paper introduces a novel approach to address this training gap using large language model (LLM)-based interview simulations. Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate a voice-enabled virtual patient simulation system as a proof of concept. We described the development of the system and evaluated whether it could generate virtual patients that (1) accurately adhered to predefined clinical profiles, (2) maintained a coherent and consistent narrative, and (3) produced dialogue that is perceived as realistic. Methods: We implemented a system that used an LLM to simulate patients with specified symptom profiles, demographic backgrounds, and distinct communication styles. The system's performance was analyzed through a mixed methods evaluation, which included a formal assessment by 5 experienced clinical raters who conducted simulated structured Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) interviews with 4 virtual patient personae, scored them on the scale, and provided qualitative feedback on the system's clinical plausibility, narrative cohesion, and dialogue realism. Results: Across 20 interviews, the virtual patients demonstrated reasonable adherence to their configured clinical profiles, with human rater scores falling near their predefined score configurations. The mean item difference between MADRS rater scores and configured scores was 0.52 (SD 0.75); interrater reliability for the total score was 0.90 (95% CI 0.68-0.99). Expert raters consistently gave average ratings of "agree" to "strongly agree" when asked to evaluate the qualitative realism and cohesion of the virtual patients. Conclusions: LLM-powered virtual patient simulations offered a promising, scalable tool for training clinicians in standardized clinical assessment. This pilot study provides initial evidence for the system's ability to produce clinically relevant practice scenarios with reasonable fidelity.
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.