ArticleApplied clinical informatics2026
Ambient Artificial Intelligence Scribes in Pediatric Hematology-Oncology: Early Implementation of DAX Copilot.
Article in Applied clinical 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
Abstract
Background: Ambient artificial intelligence scribes are increasingly integrated into electronic health records to reduce documentation burden, but limited data describe their performance in high-complexity pediatric subspecialties. Objectives: This study aimed to describe the early implementation of Dragon Ambient Experience (DAX) Copilot in a pediatric hematology-oncology division and evaluate patterns of use, documentation time, and workflow effect among providers who adopted the tool. Methods: We reviewed outpatient encounters from January to July 2025 and identified those using DAX. Analyses focused on providers who used DAX more than twice, given low overall adoption. Documentation time (minutes spent in active editing sessions) and note-closure timeliness were compared between DAX and non-DAX encounters. Implementation processes, barriers, and accuracy concerns were qualitatively summarized. Results: Of 11,544 outpatient encounters, 427 (3.7%) involved DAX; 10 of 29 providers used DAX at least once, while 6 (20.7%) used it more than twice. Among repeat users, for shorter encounters (≤40 minutes), median documentation time was lower for DAX versus non-DAX (11 [interquartile range, (IQR): 13] vs. 24 [IQR: 30] minutes), corresponding to an approximately 30% lower documentation time (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.9-38.4%; Conclusion: For repeat users, DAX reduced active documentation time in shorter visits but showed limited benefit for longer encounters and did not improve the timeliness of note closure. Adoption remained modest, underscoring the importance of workflow fit and usability considerations in AI-scribe deployment.
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.