Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Brain tissue and pathology

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for qualitative analysis, but strong language performance does not guarantee strong interpretation when meaning depends on method and context. We developed a context-specific workflow that translated framework analysis into bounded, sequential LLM-supported tasks and applied it to 20 Chinese-language interviews on fear of dementia (approximately 150,000 characters). Four multilingual LLM-generated outputs and a previous researcher-only analysis were blindly evaluated by 16 relevant experts across different analytical domains and qualitative quality dimensions (496 expert-item records). All LLMs completed the workflow, but rankings varied markedly. Qwen-output showed the most consistently favourable overall profile, while Claude-output was most often ranked first in individual domain-dimension evaluations. The researcher analysis received both highly favourable and highly unfavourable rankings; no output was consistently preferred. LLM-assisted qualitative analysis should be evaluated within its research contexts, with transparent workflows, multidimensional assessment, and continued researcher oversight.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study developed and evaluated a workflow for using large language models to analyze interviews about fear of dementia. It is about research methods for qualitative data analysis, not about treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 1 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record 3 of 4; Institution's track record 1 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 22 of the 94 points it could be judged on, which is 23 of 100. Raw total 23 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 23 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 23 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on impact for its field and year, so that was left out: it earned 22 of the 94 points we could judge it on, which is 23 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv (preprint))
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 4 / 10 Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 1 / 7 Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.5 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 0 / 4 Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 3 / 4 Last-listed author Niels Henrik Chavannes: h-index 67 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 1 / 3 University of Groningen: institution h-index 1,383 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 2 / 3 OpenAlex lists 6 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 22 / 94 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 94 points we could judge it on is 23 out of 100.
Total 23 / 100 Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Dai, H., Li, Y., Villalobos-Quesada, M., Ng, Y. M., Aardoom, J., Versluis, A., et al. (2026). Context Matters in LLM-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: Workflow Development and Multidimensional Evaluation in Health Research. medRxiv (preprint). https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.07.26362410

Vancouver

Dai H, Li Y, Villalobos-Quesada M, Ng YM, Aardoom J, Versluis A, et al. Context Matters in LLM-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: Workflow Development and Multidimensional Evaluation in Health Research. medRxiv (preprint). 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.09.07.26362410.

BibTeX

@article{dai2026-095cf1dc,
  author  = {Dai, H. and Li, Y. and Villalobos-Quesada, M. and Ng, Y. M. and Aardoom, J. and Versluis, A. and Shen, H. and Spruit and others},
  title   = {{Context Matters in LLM-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: Workflow Development and Multidimensional Evaluation in Health Research}},
  journal = {medRxiv (preprint)},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.64898/2026.09.07.26362410},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.07.26362410}
}

Related studies in Brain tissue and pathology

Similar studies

More on Brain tissue and pathology

See all studies in Brain tissue and pathology →