Back

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.

2026-10-05 health informatics
10.64898/2026.09.30.26364427 medRxiv
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.

50% of probability mass above

"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.