Back

Linguistic Effects of Ambient AI on Clinical Documentation: A Matched Pre-Post Study

Li, Y.; Zhou, H.; Blackley, S.; Plasek, J. M.; Lyu, Z.; Zhang, W.; You, J.; Centi, A.; Mishuris, R.; Yang, J.; Zhou, L.

2026-02-17 health informatics
10.64898/2026.02.16.26346370 medRxiv
Show abstract

Ambient intelligence-based systems are increasingly used for clinical documentation. To quantify linguistic differences associated with ambient documentation, we conducted a matched pre-post analysis of 6,026 outpatient clinical notes from Mass General Brigham following implementation of two ambient AI documentation systems (Nuance Dragon Ambient eXperience [DAX] and Abridge). Within-clinician comparisons focused on the History of Present Illness (HPI) and Assessment and Plan (A&P) sections and evaluated syntactic complexity, lexical ambiguity, linguistic variability, discourse coherence, and readability. Manual review of 50 paired notes was performed to validate findings from automated linguistic analyses. Our analyses indicate that the linguistic effects of ambient documentation are both vendor-dependent and section-specific. Across both vendors, ambient notes in HPI were longer and exhibited greater syntactic complexity (longer sentences and clauses, increased dependency distance), lower lexical ambiguity, lower language-model perplexity, and higher local and global discourse coherence. These findings indicate that ambient systems systematically restructure conversational input into more syntactically elaborated and linguistically predictable narratives, reflecting increased standardization relative to both general-domain and biomedical language models. In contrast, changes in A&P were smaller and more heterogeneous, consistent with its more structured/templated nature. Readability analyses further showed increased length and lexical complexity in ambient HPI, whereas A&P readability differences were minimal. Overall, our findings demonstrate that ambient documentation changes how clinical information is linguistically expressed and organized, with effects varying by note section, vendor, and provider role/specialty. Evaluation should therefore extend beyond efficiency to consider effects on communication, cognitive load, clinical inference, and downstream analytics.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
18.3%
2
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
17.9%
3
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.2%
4
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.2%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 28%
4.3%
7
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.5%
8
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.0%
9
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.0%
10
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.6%
11
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
12
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.6%
14
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
15
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
16
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
17
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
18
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
19
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
20
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
22
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
23
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
25
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
JAMA Pediatrics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
27
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%