Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40611510›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2025

Large Language Models for Thematic Summarization in Qualitative Health Care Research: Comparative Analysis of Model and Human Performance.

Arturo Castellanos, Haoqiang Jiang, Paulo Gomes, Debra Vander Meer, Alfred Castillo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Advanced Research Institute Scholars' Perspectives on Program Success: A Self-determination Theory Evaluation.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Five Milestones to Addressing Rural Veteran Care Coordination, Care Management, and Case Management Needs: An Integrated Case Management Practice Framework.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Arturo Castellanos *Mason School of Business, William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7477-7379
Haoqiang Jiang *College of Informatics, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6788-9604
Paulo Gomes *Information Systems and Business Analytics Department, College of Business, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL, 33199, United States, 1 305-348-4610.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7694-5500
Debra Vander Meer *Information Systems and Business Analytics Department, College of Business, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL, 33199, United States, 1 305-348-4610.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5930-6667
Alfred CastilloInformation Systems and Business Analytics Department, College of Business, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL, 33199, United States, 1 305-348-4610.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3498-2415

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The application of large language models (LLMs) in analyzing expert textual online data is a topic of growing importance in computational linguistics and qualitative research within health care settings. Objective: The objective of this study was to understand how LLMs can help analyze expert textual data. Topic modeling enables scaling the thematic analysis of content of a large corpus of data, but it still requires interpretation. We investigate the use of LLMs to help researchers scale this interpretation. Methods: The primary methodological phases of this project were (1) collecting data representing posts to an online nurse forum, as well as cleaning and preprocessing the data; (2) using latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to derive topics; (3) using human categorization for topic modeling; and (4) using LLMs to complement and scale the interpretation of thematic analysis. The purpose is to compare the outcomes of human interpretation with those derived from LLMs. Results: There is substantial agreement (247/310, 80%) between LLM and human interpretation. For two-thirds of the topics, human evaluation and LLMs agree on alignment and convergence of themes. Furthermore, LLM subthemes offer depth of analysis within LDA topics, providing detailed explanations that align with and build upon established human themes. Nonetheless, LLMs identify coherence and complementarity where human evaluation does not. Conclusions: LLMs enable the automation of the interpretation task in qualitative research. There are challenges in the use of LLMs for evaluation of the resulting themes.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceChatGPTgenerative AIhealth carelarge language modelsmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID40611510
PMCPMC12231516

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.