Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41366572›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026

DAX Copilot: ambient AI scribe may help reduce surgical resident clinical documentation burden.

Yazid K Ghanem, Rachel Nation, Hannah Sofield, Armaun D Rouhi, Snehal V Gandhi, Rachel Sier, Zena Saleh, Amit R T Joshi, Rohit Patel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Large Language Models in Surgery: Promise, Pitfalls, and Practical Use.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026
    Review
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

9 authors.

Yazid K GhanemDepartment of Surgery, Cooper University Healthcare, 3, Cooper Plaza, Suite 411, Camden, NJ, 08103, USA. ghanem-yazidkhalilmo@cooperhealth.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0113-9632
Rachel NationDepartment of Surgery, Cooper University Healthcare, 3, Cooper Plaza, Suite 411, Camden, NJ, 08103, USA.
Hannah SofieldDepartment of Surgery, Cooper University Healthcare, 3, Cooper Plaza, Suite 411, Camden, NJ, 08103, USA.
Armaun D RouhiDepartment of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Snehal V GandhiCooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, USA.
Rachel SierVirtua Health, Camden, NJ, USA.
Zena SalehDepartment of Surgery, Cooper University Healthcare, 3, Cooper Plaza, Suite 411, Camden, NJ, 08103, USA.
Amit R T JoshiDepartment of Surgery, Cooper University Healthcare, 3, Cooper Plaza, Suite 411, Camden, NJ, 08103, USA.
Rohit PatelDepartment of Surgery, Cooper University Healthcare, 3, Cooper Plaza, Suite 411, Camden, NJ, 08103, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe burden of clinical documentation is high, especially for surgical residents who must balance a high clinical and operative workload with accurate and sufficient documentation. This can lead to resident burnout and worse patient care and satisfaction. DAX-Copilot, an ambient-AI tool that can "listen" to a clinical interaction and draft a clinical note, may help alleviate this documentation burden. In this study, we critically assess the accuracy, usefulness, and readiness of DAX-Copilot for use by surgery residents in an inpatient setting.

methodsDAX Copilot, a commercially available AI-powered scribe that conforms to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) standards was tested in 25 simulated inpatient scenarios. We simulated these patient interactions with multiple voices provided by the authors in a highly representative setting. Three authors used a Modified Patient Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) Assessment Tool to score the generated notes.

resultsOverall, the authors were impressed by DAX Copilot's ability to convert plain speech to accurate and consistent notes. The authors also noted that the AI was exceptionally easy to use and was able to recognize dissatisfied patients and describe their complaints in a professional manner. On average (SD), the generated notes scored 46.91/50 (1.35). More specifically, the notes scored highly in the following domains: accuracy, thoroughness, comprehensibility, succinctness, synthesis, and internal consistency, and were free from hallucination and bias. We scored the tool a 4/5 (0.5) for organization and usefulness because the default note still requires basic editing to fit the style of surgical notes.

conclusionAmbient AI is poised to revolutionize clinical documentation, with the potential to reduce its burden on surgical residents. More work is required to assess this tool in additional clinically relevant patient encounters. Additionally, the authors would like to explore methods to promote institutional proficiency in using this tool and further optimize its output.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDocumentationElectronic Health RecordsGeneral SurgeryInternship and ResidencyHumansWorkloadAmbient AIArtificial intelligenceDocumentationEMR

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.