<p>Patient-generated reviews reduce information asymmetry in online health communities (OHCs), as OHCs credence goods markets where service quality is difficult to evaluate. Although prior research has examined static physician attributes, the dynamic communication processes associated with review generation remain underexplored. Furthermore, treating patient feedback as a unidimensional construct overlooks the distinct attributional pathways underlying satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Integrating cue utilization theory with attribution theory, we examine how physicians’ communication cues are asymmetrically associated with positive and negative reviews, and how professional status moderates these relationships. Analyzing 69,954 consultation records using a human-in-the-loop deep learning framework, we identify significant diagnostic asymmetry in cue associations. Emotional support cues show dual diagnosticity, being associated with a 6.9% higher likelihood of positive reviews and a 60.9% lower likelihood of negative reviews. In contrast, informational support cues are associated with a 7.1% higher likelihood of positive reviews, while their average association with negative reviews is not statistically significant and is significantly weaker than that of emotional support cues. This pattern reflects the attributional ambiguity patients face when assessing technical quality. Physician professional status further serves as an attributional anchor. High status provides a validity warrant that reduces the ambiguity of informational cues and makes emotional support more likely to be interpreted as genuine care in the negative-feedback pathway. These findings help explain asymmetric feedback formation in digital credence markets and offer governance insights for online platforms.</p>