Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35710676›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2022

Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model for Automated Assessment of Resident Clinical Reasoning Documentation.

Verity Schaye, Benedict Guzman, Jesse Burk-Rafel, Marina Marin, Ilan Reinstein, David Kudlowitz, Louis Miller, Jonathan Chun, Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Are Psychiatry Faculty Prepared to Guide AI Use? A National Survey.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Writing: The Art of Slowing Down Thinking.Neurology. Education · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Verity SchayeNYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. verity.schaye@nyulangone.org.ORCID 0000-0003-0816-4037
Benedict GuzmanNYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Jesse Burk-RafelNYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Marina MarinNYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Ilan ReinsteinNYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
David KudlowitzNYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Louis MillerZucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA.
Jonathan ChunStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Yindalon AphinyanaphongsNYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResidents receive infrequent feedback on their clinical reasoning (CR) documentation. While machine learning (ML) and natural language processing (NLP) have been used to assess CR documentation in standardized cases, no studies have described similar use in the clinical environment.

objectiveThe authors developed and validated using Kane's framework a ML model for automated assessment of CR documentation quality in residents' admission notes. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, MAIN MEASURES: Internal medicine residents' and subspecialty fellows' admission notes at one medical center from July 2014 to March 2020 were extracted from the electronic health record. Using a validated CR documentation rubric, the authors rated 414 notes for the ML development dataset. Notes were truncated to isolate the relevant portion; an NLP software (cTAKES) extracted disease/disorder named entities and human review generated CR terms. The final model had three input variables and classified notes as demonstrating low- or high-quality CR documentation. The ML model was applied to a retrospective dataset (9591 notes) for human validation and data analysis. Reliability between human and ML ratings was assessed on 205 of these notes with Cohen's kappa. CR documentation quality by post-graduate year (PGY) was evaluated by the Mantel-Haenszel test of trend. KEY

resultsThe top-performing logistic regression model had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.88, a positive predictive value of 0.68, and an accuracy of 0.79. Cohen's kappa was 0.67. Of the 9591 notes, 31.1% demonstrated high-quality CR documentation; quality increased from 27.0% (PGY1) to 31.0% (PGY2) to 39.0% (PGY3) (p < .001 for trend). Validity evidence was collected in each domain of Kane's framework (scoring, generalization, extrapolation, and implications).

conclusionsThe authors developed and validated a high-performing ML model that classifies CR documentation quality in resident admission notes in the clinical environment-a novel application of ML and NLP with many potential use cases.

Indexed as

Clinical ReasoningDocumentationElectronic Health RecordsHumansMachine LearningNatural Language ProcessingReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studiesassessmentclinical reasoningdocumentationmachine learningnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID35710676
PMCPMC9296753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.