ArticleApplied clinical informatics2024
Evaluation of a Digital Scribe: Conversation Summarization for Emergency Department Consultation Calls.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Performance and improvement strategies for adapting generative large language models for electronic health record applications: A systematic review.International journal of medical informatics · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating the performance of artificial intelligence-based speech recognition for clinical documentation: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- What do clinicians edit in ambient AI-drafted clinical documentation? A qualitative content analysis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Large Language Model Summarization of Physician-to-Physician Calls for Interhospital Transfer of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
- The Ethics of AI Scribes as Epistemic Agents.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Validating Digital Scribes: A Scoping Review of Evaluation Practices and Clinical Use.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- The Current State of Digital Scribes in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- The pediatric AI readiness framework: bridging evidence to practice in pediatric artificial intelligence.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- AI-generated documentation of psychiatric interviews: a proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Copy Tools in the Electronic Health Record: Perceptions, Implications, and Future Directions.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- A learning health systems approach to implementation and evaluation of an academic emergency department single shared note workflow.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- The Impact of AI Scribes on Streamlining Clinical Documentation: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe present a proof-of-concept digital scribe system as an Emergency Department (ED) consultation call-based clinical conversation summarization pipeline to support clinical documentation, and report its performance. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe use four pre-trained large language models to establish the digital scribe system: T5-small, T5-base, PEGASUS-PubMed, and BART-Large-CNN via zero-shot and fine-tuning approaches. Our dataset includes 100 referral conversations among ED clinicians and medical records. We report the ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, and ROUGE-L to compare model performance. In addition, we annotated transcriptions to assess the quality of generated summaries.
resultsThe fine-tuned BART-Large-CNN model demonstrates greater performance in summarization tasks with the highest ROUGE scores (F1ROUGE-1=0.49, F1ROUGE-2=0.23, F1ROUGE-L=0.35) scores. In contrast, PEGASUS-PubMed lags notably (F1ROUGE-1=0.28, F1ROUGE-2=0.11, F1ROUGE-L=0.22). BART-Large-CNN's performance decreases by more than 50% with the zero-shot approach. Annotations show that BART-Large-CNN performs 71.4% recall in identifying key information and a 67.7% accuracy rate. DISCUSSION: The BART-Large-CNN model demonstrates a high level of understanding of clinical dialogue structure, indicated by its performance with and without fine-tuning. Despite some instances of high recall, there is variability in the model's performance, particularly in achieving consistent correctness, suggesting room for refinement. The model's recall ability varies across different information categories.
conclusionThe study provides evidence towards the potential of AI-assisted tools in assisting clinical documentation. Future work is suggested on expanding the research scope with additional language models and hybrid approaches, and comparative analysis to measure documentation burden and human factors.
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.