The results support the use of this modular AI-assisted clinical documentation pipeline as a human-supervised draft-generation tool that still requires clinician review, local workflow evaluation, and prospective clinical validation before broader deployment.
Abstract
Clinical documentation in Electronic Health Records (EHRs) remains a substantial source of administrative burden for clinicians. In this study, we evaluate a modular AI-assisted clinical documentation pipeline using two complementary approaches: (1) a controlled benchmark based on multilingual synthetic clinical dialogues, and (2) an observational analysis of real-world usage traces from routine deployments. The benchmark enables systematic comparison of ASR–LLM configurations under fully controlled conditions, using metrics for transcription accuracy (Word Error Rate and Medical WER), report-generation quality, and modeled processing cost. Within this benchmark setting, Voxtral showed the strongest ASR performance among the evaluated models, while GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro showed the strongest report-generation performance under the automated evaluation used in this study. The real-world trace analysis should be interpreted as descriptive evidence of operational use, not as prospective clinical validation or as a direct evaluation of any single benchmarked configuration. Taken together, the results support the use of this pipeline as a human-supervised draft-generation tool that still requires clinician review, local workflow evaluation, and prospective clinical validation before broader deployment.
Bottom-up incremental scoring showed the closest alignment with human assessment in clinical AI evaluation, underscoring the need for standardised prompt architectures in clinical AI evaluation.
Current LLMs do not achieve inter-rater reliability levels comparable to medical professionals in clinical information extraction from ENT documentation, suggesting they are best suited for initial extraction with human verification rather than autonomous operation.
L. Barrett, N. Joshi, A. S. North et al.· medRxiv· 0 citations
The VLM demonstrated reliable clinical interpretation and an acceptable safety profile, however its integration into clinical workflows for early recognition of physiological deterioration and patient acuity assessment requires further rigorous evaluation and comparison to currently used track-and-trigger systems and patient monitoring methods.
I. Strechen, P. Krishnan, O. Kilickaya et al.· International Journal of Med...· 0 citations
Although promising, LLM-based systems are not yet reliable enough for autonomous medical diagnosis, and multiple recommendations for future research are contained to ensure a high level of safety, transparency, and clinical applicability for LLMs and other AI/ML-related technologies and devices.
M. U. K. Gunawardhna, Pirunthavi Wijikumar, D. Weerasinghe· Sri Lankan Journal of Applie...· 0 citations
The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes clinical settings demands rigorous and reliable evaluation. However, existing medical benchmarks remain static, suffering from two critical limitations: (1) data contamination, where test sets inadvertently leak into training corpora, leading to inflated performance estimates; and (2) temporal misalignment, failing to capture the rapid evolution of medical knowledge. Furthermore, current evaluation metrics for open-ended clinical reasoning often rely on either shallow lexical overlap (e.g., ROUGE) or subjective LLM-as-a-Judge scoring, both inadequate for verifying clinical correctness. % To bridge these gaps, we introduce LiveMedBench, a continuously updated, contamination-limited, and rubric-based benchmark that weekly harvests real-world clinical cases from online medical communities, ensuring strict temporal separation from model training data. We propose a Multi-Agent Clinical Curation Framework that filters raw data noise and validates clinical integrity against evidence-based medical principles. For evaluation, we develop an Automated Rubric-based Evaluation Framework that decomposes physician responses into granular, case-specific criteria, achieving substantially stronger alignment with expert physicians than LLM-as-a-Judge. % To date, LiveMedBench comprises 2,756 real-world cases spanning 38 medical specialties and two languages, paired with 16,702 unique evaluation criteria. Extensive evaluation of 38 LLMs reveals that even the best-performing model achieves only 39.2%, and 84% of models exhibit performance degradation on post-cutoff cases, confirming pervasive data contamination risks. Error analysis further identifies contextual application---not factual knowledge---as the dominant bottleneck, with 35-48% of failures stemming from the inability to tailor medical knowledge to patient-specific constraints. The code and data are available at https://github.com/ZhilingYan/LiveMedBench/ LiveMedBench.
Zhiling Yan, D. Song, Zhe Fang et al.· Proceedings of the 32nd ACM...· 0 citations
Transformer-based language models have been applied across diverse clinical-note tasks, but the evidence base more strongly supports retrospective task feasibility than transportability, equitable performance, workflow benefit, or safe clinical deployment.
Saahoon Hong, Hunhui Na· Information· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
