ArticleApplied clinical informatics2023
Doctors Identify Hemorrhage Better during Chart Review when Assisted by Artificial Intelligence.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Blood Management: A Systematic Review of Predictive, Diagnostic, and Decision Support Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluated if medical doctors could identify more hemorrhage events during chart review in a clinical setting when assisted by an artificial intelligence (AI) model and medical doctors' perception of using the AI model.
methodsTo develop the AI model, sentences from 900 electronic health records were labeled as positive or negative for hemorrhage and categorized into one of 12 anatomical locations. The AI model was evaluated on a test cohort consisting of 566 admissions. Using eye-tracking technology, we investigated medical doctors' reading workflow during manual chart review. Moreover, we performed a clinical use study where medical doctors read two admissions with and without AI assistance to evaluate performance when using and perception of using the AI model.
resultsThe AI model had a sensitivity of 93.7% and a specificity of 98.1% on the test cohort. In the use studies, we found that medical doctors missed more than 33% of relevant sentences when doing chart review without AI assistance. Hemorrhage events described in paragraphs were more often overlooked compared with bullet-pointed hemorrhage mentions. With AI-assisted chart review, medical doctors identified 48 and 49 percentage points more hemorrhage events than without assistance in two admissions, and they were generally positive toward using the AI model as a supporting tool.
conclusionMedical doctors identified more hemorrhage events with AI-assisted chart review and they were generally positive toward using the AI model.
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.