Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40575383›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025

AI-generated draft replies to patient messages: exploring effects of implementation.

Charlotte M H H T Bootsma-Robroeks, Jessica D Workum, Stephanie C E Schuit, Anne Hoekman, Tarannom Mehri, Job N Doornberg, Tom P van der Laan, Rosanne C Schoonbeek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Charlotte M H H T Bootsma-RobroeksDepartment of Health Information Office, Information Management Healthcare, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands.
Jessica D WorkumDepartment of Intensive Care, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, Netherlands.
Stephanie C E SchuitUniversity Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands.
Anne HoekmanDepartment of Health Information Office, Information Management Healthcare, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands.
Tarannom MehriDepartment of Health Information Office, Information Management Healthcare, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands.
Job N DoornbergDepartment of Trauma Surgery/Orthopedics, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands.
Tom P van der LaanDepartment of Health Information Office, Information Management Healthcare, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands.
Rosanne C SchoonbeekDepartment of Health Information Office, Information Management Healthcare, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Electronic Health Records (EHRs) has the potential to reduce administrative burden. Validating these tools in real-world clinical settings is essential for responsible implementation. In this study, the effect of implementing LLM-generated draft responses to patient questions in our EHR is evaluated with regard to adoption, use and potential time savings. Material and methods: Physicians across 14 medical specialties in a non-English large academic hospital were invited to use LLM-generated draft replies during this prospective observational clinical cohort study of 16 weeks, choosing either the drafted or a blank reply. The adoption rate, the level of adjustments to the initial drafted responses compared to the final sent messages (using ROUGE-1 and BLEU-1 natural language processing scores), and the time spent on these adjustments were analyzed. Results: A total of 919 messages by 100 physicians were evaluated. Clinicians used the LLM draft in 58% of replies. Of these, 43% used a large part of the suggested text for the final answer (≥10% match drafted responses: ROUGE-1: 86% similarity, vs. blank replies: ROUGE-1: 16%). Total response time did not significantly different when using a blank reply compared to using a drafted reply with ≥10% match (157 vs. 153 s, Discussion: General adoption of LLM-generated draft responses to patient messages was 58%, although the level of adjustments on the drafted message varied widely between medical specialties. This implicates safe use in a non-English, tertiary setting. The current implementation has not yet resulted in time savings, but a learning curve can be expected. Registration number: 19035.

Indexed as

adoptionelectronic health recordsinbasket messageslarge language model (LLM)LLM generated draft responsestime saving

Identifiers

PMID40575383
PMCPMC12198195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.