ArticleThe clinical teacher2025
Medical Students' Perception of Automated Note Feedback After Simulated Encounters.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Medical Students' Perception of Automated Note Feedback After Simulated Encounters.The clinical teacher · 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
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.