ArticleJAMIA open2026
Optimizing generative artificial intelligence for clinical summarization: a blinded comparison study of automated versus human care planning synopses.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Data, information, and knowledge in health care has expanded exponentially over the past 50 years, leading to significant challenges with information overload and complex, fragmented care plans. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to facilitate summarization and integration of knowledge to enable efficient care planning and reduce cognitive load of clinicians. Objective: To determine the value of AI generated summarization through optimization of short synopsis creation at care transitions. Design: Blinded, randomized comparison study comparing human- vs AI-generated synopses using the data-information-knowledge-wisdom framework. Participants: De-identified records of 64 patients with multiple chronic conditions from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database. Main Measures: Accuracy, succinctness, synthesis, and usefulness of synopses using a standardized scale with scores > 80% indicating success. Key Results: Artificial intelligence and clinicians summarized 64 patients with 12% overlap. In blinded trials, AI synopses were rated as useful 75% of the time vs 76% for human synopses. AI had lower succinctness ratings for the data synopsis task (55%-67%). For accuracy and synthesis, AI had near equal or better scores in other domains (AI: 72%-79%, humans: 68%-84%), with best scores from AI in wisdom. Interrater agreement was variable. Conclusions: Artificial intelligence-created synopses that were nearly equivalent to human-created ones; they were slightly longer and did not always synthesize individual data elements compared to humans. We showed that expert-guided optimization of an open-source large language model can lead to synopses that match those produced by humans, reducing cognitive load.
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.