ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Large language model evaluation and feedback of transcribed simulated physician-patient verbal interactions.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.