Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This study leverages large language models to systematically extract ten distinct physician trait scores from 4.1 million nationwide reviews, revealing significant gender-based biases in perceived clinical competence across the U.S. healthcare workforce. By validating LLM-derived metrics against human expert benchmarks and identifying four national archetypes of provider behavior, the research establishes a scalable method for analyzing how AI interprets unstructured medical feedback data. Pending further clinical validation, these findings offer critical insights into fairness issues within automated review aggregation tools used by patients seeking care.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Mapping Patient-Perceived Physician Traits from Nationwide Online Reviews with LLMs

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2510.03997v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Understanding how patients perceive their physicians is essential to improving trust, communication, and satisfaction. Patients increasingly consult large language models (LLMs) to summarize physician reviews and shape provider choices, yet the national landscape of patient-perceived physician traits remains poorly characterized. We present an LLM-based pipeline that extracts ten patient-perceived physician trait scores from review text: five Big-Five-style and five patient-oriented dimensions. From one million U.S. physicians, we analyze 4.1 million reviews of 226,999 physicians. We validate the pipeline through multi-model comparison and human expert benchmarking. LLM and human-rater trait scores from reviews are consistent. Trait scores correlate strongly with review rating scores yet retain substantial independent variance. Two national-scale patterns emerge: male physicians receive higher trait scores across all traits, with the largest gap in clinical competence; specialty differences are driven by encounter context, with surgical specialties leading interpersonal qualities and psychiatry lowest. Cluster analysis identifies four physician archetypes, from "Uniform High" (33.8%, high across traits) to "Uniform Low" (22.6%, low across traits). This map of LLM-derived physician traits exposes how LLMs read the U.S. clinical workforce. Pending clinical validation, it opens future research on fairness, bias, and how LLM-mediated provider search shapes patient choice.

Abstract:Understanding how patients perceive their physicians is essential to improving trust, communication, and satisfaction. Patients increasingly consult large language models (LLMs) to summarize physician reviews and shape provider choices, yet the national landscape of patient-perceived physician traits remains poorly characterized. We present an LLM-based pipeline that extracts ten patient-perceived physician trait scores from review text: five Big-Five-style and five patient-oriented dimensions. From one million U.S. physicians, we analyze 4.1 million reviews of 226,999 physicians. We validate the pipeline through multi-model comparison and human expert benchmarking. LLM and human-rater trait scores from reviews are consistent. Trait scores correlate strongly with review rating scores yet retain substantial independent variance. Two national-scale patterns emerge: male physicians receive higher trait scores across all traits, with the largest gap in clinical competence; specialty differences are driven by encounter context, with surgical specialties leading interpersonal qualities and psychiatry lowest. Cluster analysis identifies four physician archetypes, from "Uniform High" (33.8%, high across traits) to "Uniform Low" (22.6%, low across traits). This map of LLM-derived physician traits exposes how LLMs read the U.S. clinical workforce. Pending clinical validation, it opens future research on fairness, bias, and how LLM-mediated provider search shapes patient choice.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2510.03997 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2510.03997v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.03997 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 288 words

Related coverage