ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Human-in-the-loop LLM-assisted thematic analysis: A validated, reproducible tutorial for large-scale qualitative research.
Article in Behavior research methods, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support qualitative research, yet clear methodological frameworks for integrating them into thematic analysis remain limited. A central challenge is how to scale qualitative coding with LLM assistance while preserving methodological rigor and reproducibility. This tutorial presents a structured, human-in-the-loop workflow for conducting large-scale thematic analysis with LLM support. Grounded in inductive and hybrid approaches to thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), the workflow proceeds in three phases. First, researchers conduct manual thematic analysis on a subset of data to establish an initial codebook and assess relevance. Second, the same subset is analyzed using an LLM to iteratively refine prompts and evaluate alignment between human and model outputs. Third, the validated approach is applied to the full corpus using a modular four-step pipeline: key-idea extraction, chunk-level thematic coding, theme consolidation, and clustering, with iterative human verification through random sampling of outputs. We demonstrate the workflow using 2,952 publicly available Reddit posts. Structured prompt design and JSON-formatted outputs enable traceability between themes and source data and support reproducible analysis. Prompt engineering is treated as an iterative analytic process rather than a one-time instruction. Under controlled conditions, human and LLM coding showed high agreement (Cohen's κ = 0.91). All prompts, code, and reproducibility materials are openly available via an Open Science Framework repository. By providing detailed implementation guidance, embedded validation procedures, and safeguards against common failure modes such as hallucination and overgeneralization, this tutorial offers a practical and extensible framework for integrating LLMs into qualitative research across domains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42897414What 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.