ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Advancing the science of qualitative patient preference assessment using large language models.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Patient experiences and perspectives are essential for shaping patient-centered healthcare. While large language models (LLMs) in healthcare are typically applied to specific clinical or patient-facing tasks, they have not been used for qualitative patient preference assessment, which often relies on thematic analysis to understand patient views expressed in interviews or focus groups. LLMs show initial promise for performing inductive thematic analysis of healthcare interview or focus group transcripts, yet no empirical studies have investigated LLMs to facilitate qualitative patient preference assessment. We employed the open-source Hermes-3-Llama-3.1-70B LLM to perform inductive thematic analysis on focus group transcripts from a previously published qualitative patient preference assessment study using three optimized prompt frameworks, and evaluated semantic similarity of LLM generated themes against human-analyzed themes using the Sentence-T5-XXL language embedding model. Sentence-level theme similarity was assessed using Jaccard similarity coefficients (0-1 range), computing coefficient scores across a broad range of discrete cosine similarity thresholds. We further evaluated LLM themes for similarity in lexical diversity and reading grade-level metrics and benchmarked semantic similarity results with published similarity thresholds previously used with qualitative healthcare data. All prompt frameworks generated themes with median Jaccard similarity coefficients with human-analyzed themes between 0.46-0.64, indicating moderate semantic overlap. Our best-performing framework instructed to pursue thematic saturation scored closest to human-analyzed themes on all reading grade-level metrics, and demonstrated 12% higher semantic overlap with human-analyzed themes compared to published benchmarks. Our worst-performing framework produced themes with moderate semantic overlap and hallucinated findings unidentified in human-analyzed themes. We demonstrate that LLMs can perform inductive thematic analysis of qualitative patient preference data, producing themes substantively similar in content and style to human-analyzed themes when augmented with sufficient domain-specific context. While LLMs may augment thematic analysis, the contextual nature of qualitative analysis remains a challenge requiring collaborative LLM frameworks integrating human expertise.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.