ArticleJAMIA open2026
Intelligent documentation in medical education: can AI replace manual case logging?
Article in JAMIA open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study investigates the feasibility of using large language models (LLMs) to automate procedural case log documentation in radiology training. We evaluate whether AI can replace manual logging, identify which procedure types are most challenging for extraction, and assess integration into clinical workflows. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 414 curated radiology reports authored by nine interventional radiology residents between 2018 and 2024. A set of candidate models, including local (Qwen-2.5) and commercial (Claude-3.5), were tested under instruction and chain-of-thought prompting. Performance was measured by sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score, along with inference time and token efficiency to estimate operational cost. Results: Both local and commercial LLMs outperformed the standard benchmark. Qwen-2.5 achieved F1-scores of 86.66 with chain-of-thought prompting, while Claude-3.5-Haiku reached an F1-score of 86.89%. Commercial inference delivered sub-2s latency and concise outputs, while local deployment traded speed for lower recurring cost. Automation could save over 35 hours of manual annotation per resident annually. Discussion: LLMs can provide a scalable and accurate solution for radiology case log documentation. Optimizing for procedure-specific challenges and ensuring seamless integration with existing systems will be essential. Future work should validate across larger, multi-institution datasets and explore additional prompting strategies. Conclusion: LLMs show promise for automating radiology case log documentation, potentially reducing resident clerical burden. However, this single-institution feasibility study underscores the need for broader validation across diverse institutions, assessment of real-world workflow integration, and safeguards against misclassification before clinical adoption.
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.