ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026
What do clinicians edit in ambient AI-drafted clinical documentation? A qualitative content analysis.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinicians' rationale for editing ambient AI-drafted clinical notes: persistent challenges and implications for improvement.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in corneal endothelial disease and endothelial keratoplasty: current evidence, clinical readiness, and future directions.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAmbient artificial intelligence (AI) documentation is increasingly used to draft clinical notes from patient-provider conversations, but how clinicians revise and finalize these drafts is not well understood. This qualitative content analysis study characterizes real-world edits to AI-generated drafts and identifies opportunities for improvement of AI design and the implementation process. MATERIALS AND
methodsEight coders analyzed clinical documentation generated by ambient AI from 200 clinical encounters. We developed an inductive coding framework with 11 codes across 3 categories: clinical content, terminology, and language style. Interrater reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa. We then applied thematic analysis to synthesize patterns across the coded edits.
resultsThe most frequently edited content pertained to clinical facts including orders (eg, procedures, lab tests) (40.0%), symptoms (30.3%), medication prescriptions (27.3%), and diagnosis descriptions (25.9%). In comparison, edits related to terminology use (11.6%) and language style (7.2%) were less frequent. The results of our thematic analysis show that most edits can be categorized into one of the following 5 types: to revise factual discrepancies, to add medical specialty-specific details, to express diagnostic certainties, to convert patient expressions into objective assessments recorded in medical terms, and to reorganize or condense content. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: Clinicians routinely revise ambient AI drafts to modify factual details and clinical specificity. Future work on AI development and clinical implementation should emphasize specialty customization and support personalized documentation practices, alongside clinician education that promotes robust and consistent review routines to ensure documentation quality.
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.