Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38749477›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2024

Evaluation of a Digital Scribe: Conversation Summarization for Emergency Department Consultation Calls.

Emre Sezgin, Joseph Winstead Sirrianni, Kelly Kranz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. What do clinicians edit in ambient AI-drafted clinical documentation? A qualitative content analysis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. The Ethics of AI Scribes as Epistemic Agents.JMIR medical informatics · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

3 authors.

Emre SezginNationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, United States.
Joseph Winstead SirrianniIT Research Innovation - Data Science, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, United States.
Kelly KranzNationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, United States.

Funding

The OSU Center for Clinical and Translational Science: Advancing Today's Discoveries to Improve HealthUM1TR004548 · NCATS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI CYNTHIA A GERHARDT, JULIE A. JOHNSON · 2023 to 2026
$22.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004548NCATS NIH HHS UM1TR004548
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID38749477
PMCPMC11268986

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.