Development and Evaluation of a Digital Scribe: Conversation Summarization Pipeline for Emergency Department Counseling Sessions towards Reducing Documentation Burden - Sezgin, Emre; Sirrianni, Joseph; Kranz, Kelly (medRxiv, 2023)
Objective We present a proof-of-concept digital scribe system as an ED clinical conversation summarization pipeline and report its performance.Materials and Methods We use four pre-trained large language models to establish the digital scribe system: T5-small, T5-base, PEGASUS-PubMed, and BART-Large-CNN via zero-shot and fine-tuning approaches. Our dataset includes 100 referral conversations among ED clinicians and medical records. We report the ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, and ROUGE-L to compare model performance. In addition, we annotated transcriptions to assess the quality of generated summaries.Results The fine-tuned BART-Large-CNN model demonstrates greater performance in summarization tasks with the highest ROUGE scores (F1ROUGE-1=0.49, F1ROUGE-2=0.23, F1ROUGE-L=0.35) scores. In contrast, PEGASUS-PubMed lags notably (F1ROUGE-1=0.28, F1ROUGE-2=0.11, F1ROUGE-L=0.22). BART-Large-CNN’s performance decreases by more than 50% with the zero-shot approach. Annotations show that BART-Large-CNN performs 71.4% recall in identifying key information and a 67.7% accuracy rate.Discussion The BART-Large-CNN model demonstrates a high level of understanding of clinical dialogue structure, indicated by its performance with and without fine-tuning. Despite some instances of high recall, there is variability in the model’s performance, particularly in achieving consistent correctness, suggesting room for refinement. The model’s recall ability varies across different information categories.Conclusion The study provides evidence towards the potential of AI-assisted tools in reducing clinical documentation burden. Future work is suggested on expanding the research scope with larger language models, and comparative analysis to measure documentation efforts and time.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe project described was supported by Award Number UM1TR004548 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences or the National Institutes of Health.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Study is approved by NCH ethical board (#00002897)I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon ethical board approval and subject to institutional data use agreement.