Effect of Applying a Real-Time Medical Record Input Assistance System With Voice Artificial Intelligence on Triage Task Performance in the Emergency Department: Prospective Interventional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Natural language processing has been established as an important tool when using unstructured text data; however, most studies in the medical field have been limited to a retrospective analysis of text entered manually by humans. Little research has focused on applying natural language processing to the conversion of raw voice data generated in the clinical field into text using speech-to-text algorithms. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated the promptness and reliability of a real-time medical record input assistance system with voice artificial intelligence (RMIS-AI) and compared it to the manual method for triage tasks in the emergency department. METHODS: From June 4, 2021, to September 12, 2021, RMIS-AI, using a machine learning engine trained with 1717 triage cases over 6 months, was prospectively applied in clinical practice in a triage unit. We analyzed a total of 1063 triage tasks performed by 19 triage nurses who agreed to participate. The primary outcome was the time for participants to perform the triage task. RESULTS: The median time for participants to perform the triage task was 204 (IQR 155, 277) seconds by RMIS-AI and 231 (IQR 180, 313) seconds using manual method; this difference was statistically significant (P<.001). Most variables required for entry in the triage note showed a higher record completion rate by the manual method, but in the recording of additional chief concerns and past medical history, RMIS-AI showed a higher record completion rate than the manual method. Categorical variables entered by RMIS-AI showed less accuracy compared with continuous variables, such as vital signs. CONCLUSIONS: RMIS-AI improves the promptness in performing triage tasks as compared to using the manual input method. However, to make it a reliable alternative to the conventional method, technical supplementation and additional research should be pursued.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".