Evaluation framework for LLM thematic analysis of clinical transcripts

Research applicability

Provides a structure for assessing LLM qualitative-analysis workflows in clinical research without treating agreement metrics alone as validity.

Getting started

Read https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.14597 (inspected v2) for the study framing; inspect full methods and data permissions before adaptation. Suggested adoption steps are editorial guidance, not a tested workflow.

Maintenance

Static research publication; current software maintenance not assessed.

License

License not audited; consult source terms before reuse. This is not an exclusion criterion.

Workflow & human oversight

Method/framework-level autonomy is unspecified; researchers choose evaluation criteria, govern data and interpret outputs.

Workflow level is not an evidence score; higher is not better evidence.

Approach

The authors combine a systematic review of LLM thematic-analysis studies with a clinician interview, then propose a three-dimensional evaluation framework.

Limitations

A position and evaluation framework, not a validated clinical analysis tool or demonstrated patient benefit. Workshop presentation is an arXiv comment, not independently verified peer-review status. Primary-source abstract and metadata review only; full-text methods, implementation and data were not inspected. No model or experiment was run and no outcome independently reproduced.

Reproducibility

Primary-source abstract and metadata review only; full-text methods, implementation and data were not inspected. No model or experiment was run and no outcome independently reproduced.

Adoption requirements

Use as a methodological reference; applying it requires qualitative and clinical expertise, an evaluation protocol and appropriate governance for sensitive transcripts. No software deployment was inspected.