ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026
AI-generated clinical summaries: errors and susceptibility to speech and speaker variability.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate whether variability in patients' communication style (personality), international English-accents (human and synthetic) and speech impairments affects the accuracy of a Clinical AI Scribe (CAIS) and identify where performance degrades to inform pre-deployment validation and monitoring.
methodsWe conducted simulated primary-care consultations using trained actors. For personality types, four scenarios were enacted, each with five patient-personality types. For accents, transcripts of consultations were used to generate combinations of seven accents across five scenarios. The CAIS produced summaries that were compared with transcripts, and errors classified as omissions, factual inaccuracies or hallucinations. For speech impairments, public recordings representing five profiles were transcribed and word-recognition accuracy calculated.
resultsPersonality types showed no statistically significant differences in errors (all p>0.05). Extraversion had the highest total errors (median 3.5). Across accents, comparisons were non-significant for both patient and doctor voices (patients: p=0.851; doctors: p=0.980). Omissions predominated, with low rates of hallucinations and factual inaccuracies. Omissions were slightly higher for Chinese-accented and Indian-accented doctors (both medians 3.0). Conversely, speech impairments differed: cleft palate and vowel disorders were near-perfect, whereas phonological impairment markedly reduced recognition (p<0.001). DISCUSSION: Operationally, CAIS deployment should include clinician-in-the-loop verification, subgroup performance monitoring (accents, impairments) and predefined 'switch-off' criteria for severe phonological patterns. High-quality synthetic voices are a pragmatic proxy for accent testing when balanced corpora are unavailable.
conclusionsUnder controlled conditions CAIS performance was broadly stable across communication styles and most accents, but vulnerable to specific speech characteristics, particularly phonological impairment, in this single-system simulation study.
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.