Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40592818›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

A machine learning model using clinical notes to identify physician fatigue.

Chao-Chun Hsu, Ziad Obermeyer, Chenhao Tan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Chao-Chun HsuUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4117-2119
Ziad ObermeyerUniversity of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4563-5849
Chenhao TanUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. chenhao@uchicago.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3981-2116

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical notes should capture important information from a physician-patient encounter, but they may also contain signals indicative of physician fatigue. Using data from 129,228 emergency department (ED) visits, we train a model to identify notes written by physicians who are likely to be tired: those who worked ED shifts on at least 5 of the prior 7 days. In a hold-out set, the model accurately identifies notes written by such high-workload physicians. It also flags notes written in other settings with high fatigue: overnight shifts and high patient volumes. When the model identifies signs of fatigue in a note, physician decision-making for that patient appears worse: yield of testing for heart attack is 19% lower with each standard deviation increase in model-predicted fatigue. A key feature of notes written by fatigued doctors is the predictability of the next word, given the preceding context. Perhaps unsurprisingly, because word prediction is the core of how large language models (LLMs) work, we find that predicted fatigue of LLM-written notes is 74% higher than that of physician-written ones, highlighting the possibility that LLMs may introduce distortions in generated text that are not yet fully understood.

Indexed as

FatigueMachine LearningPhysiciansElectronic Health RecordsEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleWorkload

Identifiers

PMID40592818
PMCPMC12217598

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.