Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41251038›Full record

ArticleThe clinical teacher2025

Medical Students' Perception of Automated Note Feedback After Simulated Encounters.

Saurabh K Bansal, Manajyoti Yadav, Jianing Zhou, Rebecca A Ebert-Allen, Ryan M Klute, William F Bond, Suma Bhat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The clinical teacher, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Saurabh K BansalDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, Peoria, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8192-4835
Manajyoti YadavDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, Peoria, Illinois, USA.
Jianing ZhouDepartment of Computer Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA.
Rebecca A Ebert-AllenJump Simulation, an OSF HealthCare and University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria Collaboration, Peoria, Illinois, USA.
Ryan M KluteJump Simulation, an OSF HealthCare and University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria Collaboration, Peoria, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1292-8979
William F BondJump Simulation, an OSF HealthCare and University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria Collaboration, Peoria, Illinois, USA.
Suma BhatDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA.

Funding

University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, Dean's Fund for Innovative Curriculum Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGrading medical student patient notes (PNs) is resource-intensive. Natural language processing (NLP) offers a promising solution to automatically grade PNs. We deployed an automated grading system that uses NLP and explored the perceived value of PN feedback. APPROACH: The automated system graded written notes after two standardized patient encounters by third-year medical students. The system generated an individualized report on 'items found' and 'items not found' in the history, physical examination, and diagnosis sections, which was shared with students for feedback via a web-based interface. By rotation, block students received either the automated case feedback first or the faculty-written model note feedback first (the pre-intervention baseline). EVALUATION: After reviewing feedback, students completed surveys for both automated feedback and model note feedback and participated in follow-up focus groups. In total, 44 students received feedback, 37 completed surveys, and 28 participated in focus groups. Qualitative themes that emerged suggested the automated feedback was visually appealing and allowed for easy comparison of items found vs. missing, which would help improve students' documentation skills. Model note appeared trustworthy. IMPLICATIONS: We found automated systems can be a potential tool for formative feedback on note writing activity although in terms of quality it does not surpass the pre-existing feedback methods, such as model note feedback used in our study. Order effects may have influenced these perceptions and the small sample size limits generalizability. Tested software had occasional errors in recognizing a phrase or showing a false positive.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFormative FeedbackNatural Language ProcessingStudents, MedicalFeedbackFocus GroupsHumansautomated feedbackmedical studentmodel notesnatural language processing (NLP)

Identifiers

PMID41251038
PMCPMC12624243

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.