Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42835115›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

Large language model evaluation and feedback of transcribed simulated physician-patient verbal interactions.

Eric J Nolan, Harry B Burke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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

2 authors.

Eric J NolanDivision of Hospital Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States.
Harry B BurkeGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Physician-patient verbal interactions are fundamental to clinical care and medical education, yet their evaluation is time-intensive and subject to inter-rater variability. We evaluated whether large language models (LLMs) can accurately assess transcribed standardized patient-physician verbal interactions and generate useful narrative feedback. Methods: In this single-center study, 12 standardized patient-medical student encounters were independently evaluated by ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 3 Pro, and a physician reviewer using a gold standard rubric composed of 55 history-taking elements and 19 presentation elements assessing diagnostic reasoning, management planning, and patient counseling. Agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients. Narrative feedback generated by the LLMs was independently evaluated by ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and a physician reviewer. Results: Across raters, mean scores were similar, with 35-36 of 55 history-taking elements and 13-14 of 19 presentation elements identified as present. Agreement was high for history-taking elements ( Discussion: These findings demonstrate that LLMs can reliably evaluate simulated physician-patient interactions and may support standardized assessment of clinical communication for research, quality improvement, and medical education.

Indexed as

clinical communicationgenerative artificial intelligencelarge language models (LLMs)narrative feedbackphysician patient interaction

Identifiers

PMID42835115
PMCPMC13635307

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.