MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409983988 · doi:10.1055/a-2597-2017

Clinical Implementation of Artificial Intelligence Scribes in Health Care: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4409983988 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hadeel Hassan, Naveed Rabbani, Jacqueline Guan-Ting You, Gabriel Tse, Evan Orenstein, Chase Parsons, Karim Jessa, Lillian Sung, Adam P. Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Clinical Informatics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersU.S. National Library of Medicine
KeywordsBurnoutHealth careComputer scienceData scienceMedical educationMedicinePolitical scienceClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) scribes use advanced speech recognition and natural language processing to automate clinical documentation and ease administrative burden. However, little is known about the effect of AI scribes on clinicians, patients, and organizations. This study aimed to (1) propose an evaluation framework to guide future AI scribe implementations, (2) describe the effect of AI scribes along the domains proposed in the developed evaluation framework, and (3) identify gaps in the AI scribe implementation literature to be evaluated in future studies. Databases including Embase, Embase Classic, and Ovid Medline were searched, and a manual review was conducted of the New England Journal of Medicine AI. Studies published after 2021 that reported on the implementation of AI scribes in health care were included. Descriptive analysis was undertaken. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The nominal group technique was used to develop an evaluation framework. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, with 10 published in 2024. The most frequently used AI scribe was Dragon Ambient eXperience (n = 7, 64%). While clinicians often reported improved documentation quality, AI scribe accuracy varied, frequently requiring manual edits and raising occasional concerns about errors. Nine of 10 studies reported improvements in at least one efficiency metric, and seven of ten studies highlighted positive effects on clinician wellness and burnout. Patient experience was assessed in three studies, all reporting favorable outcomes. AI scribes represent a promising tool for improving clinical efficiency and alleviating documentation burden. This systematic review highlights the potential benefits of AI scribes, including reduced documentation time and enhanced clinician satisfaction, while also identifying critical challenges such as variable adoption, performance limitations, and gaps in evaluation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.111
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.111
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Clinical InformaticsSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207