ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Development and validation of the provider documentation summarization quality instrument for large language models.
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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing generative artificial intelligence for clinical summarization: a blinded comparison study of automated versus human care planning synopses.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Generated Electronic Medical Record Summarization in Breast Surgical Oncology.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to streamline documentation and support patient-centered gynecologic oncology outpatient visits.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence for inpatient documentation summarization: mixed-methods quality assessment and early real-world experience.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- PAUSE-Agents: A Clinician-in-the-Loop Multi-Agent AI Pipeline for ICU-to-Ward Handoff Briefs.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Assessing AI and Neurologist Diagnostic Reasoning Against Neuropathological Ground Truth.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- LogosKG: Hardware-Optimized Scalable and Interpretable Knowledge Graph Retrieval.Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · 2026Article
- Proposed Context-of-Use Evaluation Framework for Medication Management Tasks Completed by Generative Artificial Intelligence.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
- Artificial Intelligence in Urologic Documentation: A Review of Emerging Capabilities and the Ongoing Need for Human Oversight.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- UltraReporter for transforming spoken diagnostic cues into structured ultrasound reports with large language models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Tailoring Discharge Summaries to Health Care Providers' Needs (Part 1 of the Framework and Implementation of AI Tools Project): User-Centered Design Approach.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Liability Risks of Ambient Clinical Workflows With Artificial Intelligence for Clinicians, Hospitals, and Manufacturers.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Scaling Biomedical Knowledge Graph Retrieval for Interpretable Reasoning: Applications to Clinical Diagnosis Prediction.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- MEDAI-LLM-SUMM: a reporting checklist for medical text summarization studies using large language models.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of Ambient Artificial Intelligence to Improve Health Practitioner Well-Being.NEJM AI · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluating clinical AI summaries with large language models as judges.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Large Language Models with Temporal Reasoning for Longitudinal Clinical Summarization and Prediction.Findings of ACL. EMNLP. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · 2025Article
- A Randomized-Clinical Trial of Two Ambient Artificial Intelligence Scribes: Measuring Documentation Efficiency and Physician Burnout.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
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
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.