ArticleJAMA network open2021
Development and Validation of an Artificial Intelligence System to Optimize Clinician Review of Patient Records.
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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transforming the Primary Care Journey with Generative AI: A Foundation Model to Boost Efficiency, Quality, and Engagement.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- From de-skilling to up-skilling: How artificial intelligence will augment the modern physician.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Article
- Using generative artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a narrative review and proposed agenda for implementation.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Review
- Enhancing clinical documentation with voice processing and large language models: a study on the LAOS system.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Unburdening Patients and Clinicians Through Automation and Artificial Intelligence: Informatics Strategies for Reducing Administrative Burden.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Effectiveness and safety of AI-driven closed-loop systems in diabetes management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Review
- Applying the unattainable triangle in cardio-oncology care: Balancing cost, quality, and time.Oncotarget · 2025Review
- Multimodal generative AI for interpreting 3D medical images and videos.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Emergency Medicine: A Primer for the Nonexpert.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Review
- Large Language Models as Decision-Making Tools in Oncology: Comparing Artificial Intelligence Suggestions and Expert Recommendations.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Effective Integration of Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technologies for Empowerment of Drug Discovery and Development.Current drug discovery technologies · 2025Review
- Digital Information Ecosystems in Modern Care Coordination and Patient Care Pathways and the Challenges and Opportunities for AI Solutions.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Review
- Artificial intelligence-enhanced patient evaluation: bridging art and science.European heart journal · 2024Review
- Article
- Preliminary Evidence of the Use of Generative AI in Health Care Clinical Services: Systematic Narrative Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Review
- Heterogeneity and predictors of the effects of AI assistance on radiologists.Nature medicine · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What 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.