A Framework to Monitor Editing of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Medical Documentation
Garcia-Agundez, A.; Zhou, S.; Pourian, J.; Blebea, C.; Daneshpajouhnejad, P.; Dente, E.; Shi, K.; Pollet, S.; Xia, F.; Shi, X.; Thombley, R.; Fenton, C.; Murray, S. G.; Adler-Milstein, J.; Schmajuk, G.; Feng, J.; Yazdany, J.
Show abstract
Objective: To develop and evaluate a framework for characterizing clinician editing of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated[KS1.1] documentation and assess its feasibility for health system-level monitoring of AI scribes. Materials and Methods: We analyzed outpatient encounters in which an AI scribe was used at a single academic health system, examining the History of Present Illness (HPI) and Assessment and Plan (A&P) sections of notes. We characterized edits on three dimensions[KS2.1][AG2.2]: lexical edit intensity based on Levenshtein distance, embedding edit intensity BERT[KS3.1]Score, and clinical edit intensity based on removed and added UMLS[KS4.1][AG4.2] concepts.[KS5.1][AG5.2] We analyzed the Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of clinical edit intensity as a measure of clinically meaningful editing using clinicians as the gold standard, examined correlations among dimensions, and designed exponentially weighted moving-average control charts to monitor longitudinal changes in clinician editing behavior.[KS6.1][AG6.2] Results: 268,379 encounters were included (267,654 HPI, 267,594 A&P). Clinical edit intensity [≥]1 had an 88.9% PPV for clinically meaningful editing. Lexical and embedding edit intensity were highly correlated (Spearman {rho} 0.95), while clinical edit intensity was less strongly correlated with both ({rho} 0.77-0.81). Longitudinal monitoring detected changes coinciding with system-wide rollout.[KS7.1][AG7.2] Discussion:[KS8.1][AG8.2] Clinicians edited A&Ps more heavily than HPIs, potentially reflecting greater attention to content involving clinical decision-making. Over one-third of sections involved clinical concept changes, and clinical edit intensity identified clinically meaningful edits while providing information complementary to lexical editing measures. Conclusion: Clinician editing can be characterized at scale using complementary editing dimensions, providing a scalable signal for post-deployment surveillance of the human-AI documentation process.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Dataset Documentation for Responsible AI: Analysis of Suitability and Usage for Health Datasets 95%
- A typology of physician input approaches to using AI chatbots for clinical decision-making: a mixed methods study 94%
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 94%
- Development of a customised data management system for a COVID-19-adapted colorectal cancer pathway 93%
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Detecting Goals of Care Conversations in Clinical Notes with Active Learning 93%
- Signal from the Noise: A Mixed Methods Process Mining Approach to Evaluate Care Pathways. 93%
- Demonstrating the Consequences of Learning Missingness Patterns in Early Warning Systems for Preventative Health Care: A Novel Simulation and Solution 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.