ArticleCJEM2026
Automated quality assurance for emergency department documentation: pilot comparison with physician peer review of simulated chest pain cases.
Article in CJEM, 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 the feasibility and reliability of an artificial intelligence-driven quality assurance system for emergency chest pain documentation in simulated cases, compared to traditional physician reviewers.
methodsWe developed an automated quality assurance solution leveraging commercial Large Language Models that are customized based on College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario peer review standards. Seventeen simulated emergency chest pain cases of varying quality were independently reviewed by an automated auditor, six community emergency physicians, and original case writers using a 3-point evaluation scale across nine dimensions. Agreement was measured using Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient for overall score agreement, Root Mean Square Error for overall score accuracy, and Cohen's Kappa statistics for categorical dimension scores.
resultsInter-rater agreement among human reviewers showed substantial variability with overall score concordances ranging from 0.28 to 0.86. The automated auditor demonstrated agreement levels within the range of human variability within the limited sample of simulated cases with the best performing model (guideline-customized Claude Sonnet 4) with a concordance value of 0.85 and root mean square error of 0.25 with respect to the average human scores on the 3-point scale. For pass/fail decisions, agreement with human reviewers ranged from 65 to 94% with Kappa scores of 0.27 to 0.85, comparable to inter-human reviewer agreement Kappa scores of - 0.12 to 0.68.
conclusionsThe performance of the automated auditor showed agreement within the range of variability observed among that of the small group of uncalibrated human reviewers for the simulated cases in determining documentation quality and pass/fail outcomes. Given the potential variability in human assessments, automated quality assurance may provide a more consistent evaluation of quality, with the added advantage of the mass-processing of many cases in near real-time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42467160What 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.