Observational studyJMIR medical education2026
Speech- and Text-Based Emotion Recognition in Anesthesiology Residents During Critical Incident Simulation Training: Exploratory Observational Study.
Observational study in JMIR medical education, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Communication during crisis management involves not only the exchange of clinical information but also the expression and regulation of emotional tone and sentiment, which may reflect clinician performance during a critical incident. In simulation-based medical education, these emotional dynamics are rarely measured objectively, limiting the ability to capture aspects of performance relevant to competency assessment. Objective: This study aimed to examine whether automatically extracted speech- and text-based emotion signals varied across predefined phases of critical incident simulation training and whether these signals were associated with expert-rated performance among anesthesiology residents. Methods: In this exploratory observational study, we analyzed 164 simulated crisis scenarios performed by 90 anesthesiology residents from 17 hospitals during a national board preparation workshop. Each high-fidelity simulation comprised 4 predefined phases: initial condition, extreme deterioration, advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS) management, and recovery. Resident speech was isolated and analyzed using a speech-based emotion recognition (SER) model that estimated 8 emotion categories per utterance. Speech was also automatically transcribed and analyzed using text-based emotion recognition (TER), which estimated 9 emotion categories. Expert anesthesiologists rated performance on a 1-5 scale. ANOVA tested associations between emotion categories and performance, as well as variation across simulation phases. Exploratory mixed-effects sensitivity analyses accounted for repeated simulations and scenario-level clustering. Results: After 7 recordings were excluded because of technical issues, 65 of 164 (39.6%) simulations were classified as poor performance (score ≤2), 72 (43.9%) as intermediate, and 27 (16.5%) as excellent (score=5). SER categories differed across performance groups ( Conclusions: Automated speech- and text-based emotion recognition captured phase-dependent affective communication patterns during critical incident simulations. Speech-derived features were more consistently associated with expert-rated performance, whereas text-derived findings were more exploratory and emotion-specific. These markers may complement simulation debriefing and formative feedback, but validation using multirater outcomes, preregistered adjusted models, and larger multicenter datasets is needed before they inform competency assessment.
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.