Quantifying Emergency Medicine Residency Learning Curves Using Natural Language Processing: Retrospective Cohort Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The optimal duration of emergency medicine (EM) residency training remains a subject of national debate, with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education considering standardizing all programs to 4 years. However, empirical data on how residents accumulate clinical exposure over time are limited. Traditional measures, such as case logs and diagnostic codes, often fail to capture the breadth and depth of diagnostic reasoning. Natural language processing (NLP) of clinical documentation offers a novel approach to quantifying clinical experiences more comprehensively. Objective: This study aimed to (1) quantify how EM residents acquire clinical topic exposure over the course of training, (2) evaluate variation in exposure patterns across residents and classes, and (3) assess changes in workload and case complexity over time to inform the discussion on optimal program length. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of EM residents at Stanford Hospital, analyzing 244,255 emergency department encounters from July 1, 2016, to November 30, 2023. The sample included 62 residents across 4 graduating classes (2020-2023), representing all primary training site encounters where residents served as primary or supervisory providers. Using a retrieval-augmented generation NLP pipeline, we mapped resident clinical documentation to the 895 subcategories of the 2022 Model for Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine (MCPEM) via intermediate mapping to the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine, Clinical Terms, Clinical Observations, Recordings, and Encoding problem list subset. We generated cumulative topic exposure curves, quantified the diversity of topic coverage, assessed variability between residents, and analyzed the progression in clinical complexity using Emergency Severity Index (ESI) scores and admission rates. Results: Residents encountered the largest increase in new topics during postgraduate year 1 (PGY1), averaging 376.7 (42.1%) unique topics among a total of 895 MCPEM subcategories. By PGY4, they averaged 565.9 (63.2%) topics, representing a 9.9% (51/515) increase over PGY3. Exposure plateaus generally occurred at 39 to 41 months, although substantial individual variation was observed, with some residents continuing to acquire new topics until graduation. Annual case volume more than tripled from PGY1 (mean 445.7, SD 112.7 encounters) to PGY4 (mean 1528.4, SD 112.7 encounters). Case complexity increased, as evidenced by a decrease in mean ESI score from 2.94 to 2.79, and a rise in high-acuity (ESI 1-2) cases from 16% (4374/27,340) to 30.9% (9418/30,466). Conclusions: NLP analysis of clinical documentation provides a scalable, detailed method for tracking EM residents' clinical exposure and progression. Many residents continue to gain new experiences into their fourth year, particularly in higher-acuity cases. These findings suggest that a 4-year training model may offer meaningful additional educational value, while also highlighting the importance of individualized assessment given the variability in learning trajectories.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».