ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Prompt Architecture as a High-Impact Design Factor in Expert-Rated Clinical Documentation Quality: A Controlled Comparative Study in Inpatient Rehabilitation.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly explored to support clinical documentation, yet the influence of prompting architecture on documentation quality in complex longitudinal contexts remains insufficiently characterized. This controlled retrospective methodological study evaluated three prompting strategies-single prompt (SP), section-based prompt (SBP), and section-based prompt with writing refinement (SBP+W)-for generating inpatient rehabilitation discharge reports using OpenAI large language model (GPT-5.2). Twenty anonymized inpatient rehabilitation cases involving prolonged hospital stays and multidimensional functional documentation were processed under standardized model conditions. AI-generated reports were compared with human-authored summaries. Two blinded board-certified rehabilitation physicians independently evaluated outputs using a structured four-point ordinal scale assessing structural integrity, clinical coherence, completeness, and readability. Inter-rater reliability was estimated with quadratic weighted Cohen's kappa and bootstrap confidence intervals. Group differences were analyzed using non-parametric testing and exploratory multivariable modeling. All LLM prompting strategies achieved significantly higher expert-rated quality scores than human-authored reports (
Indexed as
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.