PhenoPad: Building AI enabled note-taking interfaces for patient encounters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current clinical note-taking approaches cannot capture the entirety of information available from patient encounters and detract from patient-clinician interactions. By surveying healthcare providers' current note-taking practices and attitudes toward new clinical technologies, we developed a patient-centered paradigm for clinical note-taking that makes use of hybrid tablet/keyboard devices and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. PhenoPad is an intelligent clinical note-taking interface that captures free-form notes and standard phenotypic information via a variety of modalities, including speech and natural language processing techniques, handwriting recognition, and more. The output is unobtrusively presented on mobile devices to clinicians for real-time validation and can be automatically transformed into digital formats that would be compatible with integration into electronic health record systems. Semi-structured interviews and trials in clinical settings rendered positive feedback from both clinicians and patients, demonstrating that AI-enabled clinical note-taking under our design improves ease and breadth of information captured during clinical visits without compromising patient-clinician interactions. We open source a proof-of-concept implementation that can lay the foundation for broader clinical use cases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".