Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40264096›Full record

Observational studyBMC medical education2025

Artificial intelligence based assessment of clinical reasoning documentation: an observational study of the impact of the clinical learning environment on resident documentation quality.

Verity Schaye, David J DiTullio, Daniel J Sartori, Kevin Hauck, Matthew Haller, Ilan Reinstein, Benedict Guzman, Jesse Burk-Rafel

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

8 authors.

Verity SchayeDepartment of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. verity.schaye@nyulangone.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0816-4037
David J DiTullioDepartment of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Daniel J SartoriDepartment of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Kevin HauckDepartment of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Matthew HallerDepartment of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Ilan ReinsteinInstitute for Innovations in Medical Education, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7360-4436
Benedict GuzmanDivision of Applied AI Technologies, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Jesse Burk-RafelDepartment of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObjective measures and large datasets are needed to determine aspects of the Clinical Learning Environment (CLE) impacting the essential skill of clinical reasoning documentation. Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers a solution. Here, the authors sought to determine what aspects of the CLE might be impacting resident clinical reasoning documentation quality assessed by AI.

methodsIn this observational, retrospective cross-sectional analysis of hospital admission notes from the Electronic Health Record (EHR), all categorical internal medicine (IM) residents who wrote at least one admission note during the study period July 1, 2018- June 30, 2023 at two sites of NYU Grossman School of Medicine's IM residency program were included. Clinical reasoning documentation quality of admission notes was determined to be low or high-quality using a supervised machine learning model. From note-level data, the shift (day or night) and note index within shift (if a note was first, second, etc. within shift) were calculated. These aspects of the CLE were included as potential markers of workload, which have been shown to have a strong relationship with resident performance. Patient data was also captured, including age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and primary diagnosis. The relationship between these variables and clinical reasoning documentation quality was analyzed using generalized estimating equations accounting for resident-level clustering.

resultsAcross 37,750 notes authored by 474 residents, patients who were older, had more pre-existing comorbidities, and presented with certain primary diagnoses (e.g., infectious and pulmonary conditions) were associated with higher clinical reasoning documentation quality. When controlling for these and other patient factors, variables associated with clinical reasoning documentation quality included academic year (adjusted odds ratio, aOR, for high-quality: 1.10; 95% CI 1.06-1.15; P <.001), night shift (aOR 1.21; 95% CI 1.13-1.30; P <.001), and note index (aOR 0.93; 95% CI 0.90-0.95; P <.001).

conclusionsAI can be used to assess complex skills such as clinical reasoning in authentic clinical notes that can help elucidate the potential impact of the CLE on resident clinical reasoning documentation quality. Future work should explore residency program and systems interventions to optimize the CLE.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical CompetenceClinical ReasoningDocumentationInternal MedicineInternship and ResidencyCross-Sectional StudiesElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceClinical learning environmentClinical reasoningDocumentation

Identifiers

PMID40264096
PMCPMC12016287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.