Use of Voice Recognition Software in an Outpatient Pediatric Specialty Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Voice recognition software (VRS), with specialized medical vocabulary, is being promoted to enhance physician efficiency, decrease costs, and improve patient safety. This study reports the experience of a pediatric subspecialist (pediatric gastroenterology) physician with the use of Dragon Naturally Speaking (version 6; ScanSoft Inc, Peabody, MA), incorporated for use with a proprietary electronic medical record, in a large university medical center ambulatory care service. METHODS: After 2 hours of group orientation and 2 hours of individual VRS instruction, the physician trained the software for 1 month (30 letters) during a hospital slowdown. Set-up, dictation, and correction times for the physician and medical transcriptionist were recorded for these training sessions, as well as for 42 subsequently dictated letters. Figures were extrapolated to the yearly clinic volume for the physician, to estimate costs (physician: 110 dollars per hour; transcriptionist: 11 dollars per hour, US dollars). RESULTS: The use of VRS required an additional 200% of physician dictation and correction time (9 minutes vs 3 minutes), compared with the use of electronic signatures for letters typed by an experienced transcriptionist and imported into the electronic medical record. When the cost of the license agreement and the costs of physician and transcriptionist time were included, the use of the software cost 100% more, for the amount of dictation performed annually by the physician. CONCLUSIONS: VRS is an intriguing technology. It holds the possibility of streamlining medical practice. However, the learning curve and accuracy of the tested version of the software limit broad physician acceptance at this time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".