Using HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)–Compliant Transcription Services for Virtual Psychiatric Interviews: Pilot Comparison Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Automatic speech recognition (ASR) technology is increasingly being used for transcription in clinical contexts. Although there are numerous transcription services using ASR, few studies have compared the word error rate (WER) between different transcription services among different diagnostic groups in a mental health setting. There has also been little research into the types of words ASR transcriptions mistakenly generate or omit. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the WER of 3 ASR transcription services (Amazon Transcribe [Amazon.com, Inc], Zoom-Otter AI [Zoom Video Communications, Inc], and Whisper [OpenAI Inc]) in interviews across 2 different clinical categories (controls and participants experiencing a variety of mental health conditions). These ASR transcription services were also compared with a commercial human transcription service, Rev (Rev.Com, Inc). Words that were either included or excluded by the error in the transcripts were systematically analyzed by their Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count categories. METHODS: Participants completed a 1-time research psychiatric interview, which was recorded on a secure server. Transcriptions created by the research team were used as the gold standard from which WER was calculated. The interviewees were categorized into either the control group (n=18) or the mental health condition group (n=47) using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview. The total sample included 65 participants. Brunner-Munzel tests were used for comparing independent sets, such as the diagnostic groupings, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used for correlated samples when comparing the total sample between different transcription services. RESULTS: There were significant differences between each ASR transcription service's WER (P<.001). Amazon Transcribe's output exhibited significantly lower WERs compared with the Zoom-Otter AI's and Whisper's ASR. ASR performances did not significantly differ across the 2 different clinical categories within each service (P>.05). A comparison between the human transcription service output from Rev and the best-performing ASR (Amazon Transcribe) demonstrated a significant difference (P<.001), with Rev having a slightly lower median WER (7.6%, IQR 5.4%-11.35 vs 8.9%, IQR 6.9%-11.6%). Heat maps and spider plots were used to visualize the most common errors in Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count categories, which were found to be within 3 overarching categories: Conversation, Cognition, and Function. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, consistent with previous literature, our results suggest that the WER between manual and automated transcription services may be narrowing as ASR services advance. These advances, coupled with decreased cost and time in receiving transcriptions, may make ASR transcriptions a more viable option within health care settings. However, more research is required to determine if errors in specific types of words impact the analysis and usability of these transcriptions, particularly for specific applications and in a variety of populations in terms of clinical diagnosis, literacy level, accent, and cultural origin.
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 | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".