Cost-Performance Evaluation of Large Language Models for Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis of HCAHPS Patient Comments: A Validation Study
Background: Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) free-text comments contain actionable feedback, but timely, scalable, and affordable sentiment analysis remains challenging for health systems that rely on third-party vendors. Objectives: To evaluate cost-performance tradeoffs between a cost-optimized and a flagship large language model (LLM) for aspect-based sentiment analysis of HCAHPS comments, using human inter-rater agreement as a reproducibility benchmark. Methods: We analyzed 512 free-text HCAHPS comments collected from two community hospitals in calendar year 2023. Six trained reviewers (medical students, recent medical graduates, and practicing internists) independently assigned positive, negative, or neutral labels to each comment-aspect pair; the majority label among three reviewers formed the consensus reference standard. Two OpenAI models - GPT-5-nano (cost-optimized) and GPT-5 (flagship) - were prompted in a zero-shot setting via the OpenAI API. We calculated pairwise Cohen's {kappa} to establish a human inter-rater baseline, then compared each model's labels to the consensus using Cohen's {kappa}, accuracy, weighted F1, and per-call cost and latency. Results: Mean human inter-rater agreement was {kappa} = 0.79 (substantial). Both LLMs exceeded this baseline (cost-optimized {kappa} = 0.85; flagship {kappa} = 0.85) with nearly identical accuracy (0.92) and weighted F1 (0.93 vs. 0.93). Performance was strong on positive (F1 ~ 0.97) and negative (F1 ~ 0.90) classes but poor on the underrepresented neutral class (F1