Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40323321›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025

Development and validation of the provider documentation summarization quality instrument for large language models.

Emma Croxford, Yanjun Gao, Nicholas Pellegrino, Karen Wong, Graham Wills, Elliot First, Miranda Schnier, Kyle Burton, Cris Ebby, Jillian Gorski and 9 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. LogosKG: Hardware-Optimized Scalable and Interpretable Knowledge Graph Retrieval.Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Large Language Models with Temporal Reasoning for Longitudinal Clinical Summarization and Prediction.Findings of ACL. EMNLP. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · 2025
    Article
  20. 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

19 authors.

Emma CroxfordDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53792, United States.
Yanjun GaoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Colorado-Anschutz Medical, Aurora, CO 80045, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9341-7360
Nicholas PellegrinoEpic Systems, Verona, WI 53593, United States.
Karen WongEpic Systems, Verona, WI 53593, United States.
Graham WillsUW Health, Madison, WI 53726, United States.
Elliot FirstEpic Systems, Verona, WI 53593, United States.
Miranda SchnierEpic Systems, Verona, WI 53593, United States.
Kyle BurtonUW Health, Madison, WI 53726, United States.
Cris EbbyDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53792, United States.
Jillian GorskiUW Health, Madison, WI 53726, United States.
Matthew KalscheurUW Health, Madison, WI 53726, United States.
Samy KhalilUW Health, Madison, WI 53726, United States.
Marie PisaniDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53792, United States.ORCID 0009-0007-0436-6631
Tyler RubeorUW Health, Madison, WI 53726, United States.
Peter StetsonMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, United States.
Frank LiaoUW Health, Madison, WI 53726, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7577-7530
Cherodeep GoswamiUW Health, Madison, WI 53726, United States.
Brian PattersonUW Health, Madison, WI 53726, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4584-3808
Majid AfsharDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53792, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6368-4652

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Research Training for Computation and Informatics in Biology and MedicineT15LM007359 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Mark W. Craven, Colin Noel Dewey · 2002 to 2026
$22.6M
Learning Universal Patient Representations with Hierarchical TransformersR01LM012973 · NLM · BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI Timothy A Miller · 2019 to 2026
$3.5M
Developing and Evaluating Multi-Modal Clinical Diagnostic Reasoning Models for Automated Diagnosis GenerationR00LM014308 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Yanjun Gao · 2024 to 2026
$726k
National Institute of HealthNCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NLM NIH HHS 5T15LM007359NLM NIH HHS R00 LM014308NLM NIH HHS R00 LM014308-02NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012973NLM NIH HHS R01LM012973NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007359
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAs large language models (LLMs) are integrated into electronic health record (EHR) workflows, validated instruments are essential to evaluate their performance before implementation and as models and documentation practices evolve. Existing instruments for provider documentation quality are often unsuitable for the complexities of LLM-generated text and lack validation on real-world data. The Provider Documentation Summarization Quality Instrument (PDSQI-9) was developed to evaluate LLM-generated clinical summaries. This study aimed to validate the PDSQI-9 across key aspects of construct validity. MATERIALS AND

methodsMulti-document summaries were generated from real-world EHR data across multiple specialties using several LLMs (GPT-4o, Mixtral 8x7b, and Llama 3-8b). Validation included Pearson correlation analyses for substantive validity, factor analysis and Cronbach's α for structural validity, inter-rater reliability (ICC and Krippendorff's α) for generalizability, a semi-Delphi process for content validity, and comparisons of high- versus low-quality summaries for discriminant validity. Raters underwent standardized training to ensure consistent application of the instrument.

resultsSeven physician raters evaluated 779 summaries and answered 8329 questions, achieving over 80% power for inter-rater reliability. The PDSQI-9 demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.879; 95% CI, 0.867-0.891) and high inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.867; 95% CI, 0.867-0.868), supporting structural validity and generalizability. Factor analysis identified a 4-factor model explaining 58% of the variance, representing organization, clarity, accuracy, and utility. Substantive validity was supported by correlations between note length and scores for Succinct (ρ = -0.200, P = .029) and Organized (ρ = -0.190, P = .037). The semi-Delphi process ensured clinically relevant attributes, and discriminant validity distinguished high- from low-quality summaries (P<.001). DISCUSSION: The PDSQI-9 showed high inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and a meaningful factor structure that reliably captured key dimensions of documentation quality. It distinguished between high- and low-quality summaries, supporting its practical utility for health systems needing an evaluation instrument for LLMs.

conclusionsThe PDSQI-9 demonstrates robust construct validity, supporting its use in clinical practice to evaluate LLM-generated summaries and facilitate safer, more effective integration of LLMs into healthcare workflows.

Indexed as

DocumentationElectronic Health RecordsHumansLarge Language ModelsNatural Language ProcessingReproducibility of Resultsclinical Natural Language Generationelectronic health recordevaluationgenerative artificial intellgiencelarge language modelsmulti-document summarizationnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID40323321
PMCPMC12089781

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.