ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2017
Automatically Detecting Likely Edits in Clinical Notes Created Using Automatic Speech Recognition.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the performance of artificial intelligence-based speech recognition for clinical documentation: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Improving Clinical Documentation with Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review.Perspectives in health information management · 2024Pooled it
- Speech recognition for clinical documentation from 1990 to 2018: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Pooled it
- Asynchronous Speech Recognition Affects Physician Editing of Notes.Applied clinical informatics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of automatic speech recognition (ASR) to create clinical notes has the potential to reduce costs associated with note creation for electronic medical records, but at current system accuracy levels, post-editing by practitioners is needed to ensure note quality. Aiming to reduce the time required to edit ASR transcripts, this paper investigates novel methods for automatic detection of edit regions within the transcripts, including both putative ASR errors but also regions that are targets for cleanup or rephrasing. We create detection models using logistic regression and conditional random field models, exploring a variety of text-based features that consider the structure of clinical notes and exploit the medical context. Different medical text resources are used to improve feature extraction. Experimental results on a large corpus of practitioner-edited clinical notes show that 67% of sentence-level edits and 45% of word-level edits can be detected with a false detection rate of 15%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29854187PMC5977669What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.