ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Does Recording Hardware Matter for Clinical Speech Recognition? Evaluating ASR Performance Across Consumer Devices.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
Ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) systems use automatic speech recognition (ASR) to capture patient-provider conversations for downstream clinical documentation. However, many ASR evaluations are conducted under controlled conditions using specialized hardware. We evaluated how recording devices influence transcription performance of contemporary ASR engines applied to clinical dialogue. Thirty-five primary care encounters were re-enacted from transcribed conversations and recorded using five devices simultaneously: smartphone, laptop microphone, portable recorder, clip-on microphone, and a desktop microphone. Six ASR engines were evaluated using word error rate (WER), clinical concept extraction precision and recall, and sentence-level semantic similarity. Median WER ranged from 16.7% to 20.7% across engines. Engine choice produced larger variation in transcription performance than recording device, although device-related differences were statistically significant. Overall, contemporary ASR engines demonstrated relative robustness to consumer-grade recording hardware, suggesting that model selection may have greater impact on transcription performance than recording device configuration in real-world ACI deployments.
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.