Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34297075›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Development and Validation of an Artificial Intelligence System to Optimize Clinician Review of Patient Records.

Ethan Andrew Chi, Gordon Chi, Cheuk To Tsui, Yan Jiang, Karolin Jarr, Chiraag V Kulkarni, Michael Zhang, Jin Long, Andrew Y Ng, Pranav Rajpurkar and 1 more

Abstract readEvaluation StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Artificial Intelligence in Emergency Medicine: A Primer for the Nonexpert.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025
    Article
  11. Leveraging artificial intelligence to reduce diagnostic errors in emergency medicine: Challenges, opportunities, and future directions.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Implications of using conversational robots (chatbots) in uro-oncology A patient and physician perspective.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ethan Andrew ChiDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Gordon ChiDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Cheuk To TsuiDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Yan JiangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Karolin JarrDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Chiraag V KulkarniDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Michael ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Jin LongCenter for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Andrew Y NgDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Pranav RajpurkarDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Sidhartha R SinhaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Physicians are required to work with rapidly growing amounts of medical data. Approximately 62% of time per patient is devoted to reviewing electronic health records (EHRs), with clinical data review being the most time-consuming portion. Objective: To determine whether an artificial intelligence (AI) system developed to organize and display new patient referral records would improve a clinician's ability to extract patient information compared with the current standard of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prognostic study, an AI system was created to organize patient records and improve data retrieval. To evaluate the system on time and accuracy, a nonblinded, prospective study was conducted at a single academic medical center. Recruitment emails were sent to all physicians in the gastroenterology division, and 12 clinicians agreed to participate. Each of the clinicians participating in the study received 2 referral records: 1 AI-optimized patient record and 1 standard (non-AI-optimized) patient record. For each record, clinicians were asked 22 questions requiring them to search the assigned record for clinically relevant information. Clinicians reviewed records from June 1 to August 30, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The time required to answer each question, along with accuracy, was measured for both records, with and without AI optimization. Participants were asked to assess overall satisfaction with the AI system, their preferred review method (AI-optimized vs standard), and other topics to assess clinical utility. Results: Twelve gastroenterology physicians/fellows completed the study. Compared with standard (non-AI-optimized) patient record review, the AI system saved first-time physician users 18% of the time used to answer the clinical questions (10.5 [95% CI, 8.5-12.6] vs 12.8 [95% CI, 9.4-16.2] minutes; P = .02). There was no significant decrease in accuracy when physicians retrieved important patient information (83.7% [95% CI, 79.3%-88.2%] with the AI-optimized vs 86.0% [95% CI, 81.8%-90.2%] without the AI-optimized record; P = .81). Survey responses from physicians were generally positive across all questions. Eleven of 12 physicians (92%) preferred the AI-optimized record review to standard review. Despite a learning curve pointed out by respondents, 11 of 12 physicians believed that the technology would save them time to assess new patient records and were interested in using this technology in their clinic. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study, an AI system helped physicians extract relevant patient information in a shorter time while maintaining high accuracy. This finding is particularly germane to the ever-increasing amounts of medical data and increased stressors on clinicians. Increased user familiarity with the AI system, along with further enhancements in the system itself, hold promise to further improve physician data extraction from large quantities of patient health records.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMedical RecordsUser-Centered DesignAcademic Medical CentersAdultFemaleHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalJob SatisfactionMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansProspective StudiesReferral and ConsultationTask Performance and AnalysisTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID34297075
PMCPMC8303101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.