Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Efficient Standardization of Clinical Notes using Large Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that GPT-4 can convert messy free-text clinical notes into clean, structured JSON without losing clinical content, preparing them for FHIR interoperability.

desk verdict A plausible proof of concept for LLM-based clinical note standardization, but the headline correction counts are GPT-4's self-reports, not measurements. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00644 v1 pith:2TCGKBIJ submitted 2024-12-31 cs.CL cs.AI

Daniel B. Hier , Michael D. Carrithers , Thanh Son Do , Tayo Obafemi-Ajayi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords electronichealthrecordsclinicalnotestandardizationlargelanguagemodelsGPT-4FHIRinteroperabilityJSONabbreviationexpansionmedicalterminology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a large language model, GPT-4, can take messy free-text neurology clinic notes and turn them into clean, consistently structured JSON documents without losing clinical content. On 1,618 notes from one clinic, the model reported expanding about 16 abbreviations per note, correcting roughly 5 grammatical and 3 spelling errors, and replacing about 3 colloquial or non-standard terms per note. The standardized notes are organized under canonical headings, which the authors argue makes them easier to search, to map to medical ontologies such as SNOMED CT, and to convert to interoperable formats such as FHIR. The work is a proof of concept: if the self-reported correction counts hold up, LLM-based standardization is a practical front end for extracting structured data from the electronic health record.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the prompting-and-output protocol: a single GPT-4 API call with a role prompt instructing the model to act as a medical terminologist, with explicit guidelines for expanding abbreviations, correcting spelling and grammar, reorganizing content into canonical sections, and replacing non-standard terminology, plus a fixed JSON output schema. The fixed schema does the load-bearing work: it forces the model to place content into canonical headings and to enumerate its own changes in a Metrics field (Grammatical Errors, Abbreviations Expanded, Spelling Errors, Non-Standard Terms), and that self-reported Metrics field is the source of the paper's headline correction counts. Context-based abbreviation expansion, such as resolving MS to multiple sclerosis or mental status, is the key linguistic operation the protocol relies on.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of 100 of the 1,618 source notes and have two independent human annotators enumerate every abbreviation, spelling error, grammatical error, and non-standard term in each source note and in the corresponding standardized note, then compare those human counts to the Metrics values GPT-4 reported; if the reported averages (15.8 abbreviations, 4.9 grammatical errors, 3.3 spelling errors, and 3.1 terms per note) do not reproduce within sampling error, the quantitative claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that GPT-4 can serve as an automated medical terminologist: given an unstructured ASCII clinical note and a prompting protocol, it returns a standardized note as a nested JSON object with canonical sections (HISTORY, VITAL SIGNS, EXAMINATION, LABS, RADIOLOGY, IMPRESSION, PLAN) and a Metrics block listing what it changed. Across 1,618 notes the asserted per-note yields were 4.9 ± 1.8 grammatical errors corrected, 3.3 ± 5.2 spelling errors corrected, 3.1 ± 3.0 non-standard terms converted, and 15.8 ± 9.1 abbreviations expanded. A human expert reviewed all standardized notes for completeness and formatting, a 20-note subset was checked against source notes and showed no loss of clinical content, and GPT-4 was then used for semi-structured retrieval of medications and signs and symptoms from the standardized notes. The authors conclude that standardization improves note readability and usability and prepares notes for ontology mapping and FHIR conversion.

Load-bearing premise

The headline correction counts are taken from the Metrics field that GPT-4 writes about its own edits, and those self-reports were not validated against a human-annotated gold standard; if the model's counts are confident estimates rather than accurate measurements, the quantitative claims weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported per-note correction rates are accurate, a single LLM call with a fixed prompt can normalize a roughly 6,400-character neurology note in one pass, since the entire 1,618-note corpus was processed this way.
  • Standardized JSON notes with canonical headings permit direct semi-structured extraction of medications from the PLAN section and signs and symptoms from HISTORY, EXAMINATION, and IMPRESSION, which the paper demonstrates.
  • Because a 20-note manual review found no loss of clinical content, standardized notes are candidates for mapping to ontology concepts such as SNOMED CT, LOINC, and RxNorm, and for conversion to HL7 FHIR-compatible observations.
  • The workflow, if it generalizes, turns unstructured EHR free text into a pipeline-ready input for population health, decision support, and research without requiring per-note manual cleaning.
  • The paper's preliminary cost and speed estimates, about 20 seconds and $0.01 to $0.10 per note for typical notes, suggest the pipeline is cheap enough for high-volume use, though scaling to 1,000 to 10,000 notes per day was not tested.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test the paper leaves open is whether standardized notes change downstream outcomes, such as the accuracy of medication or symptom extraction, since the measured readability gains do not by themselves establish that those tasks improve.
  • The self-reported Metrics field could itself be repurposed as a cheap annotation signal: if validated, it would provide a large weakly-labeled corpus for training smaller, faster models to perform the same standardization without an API call per note.
  • The method's dependence on a commercial API with prompt-engineered output means the quantitative results are tied to GPT-4's current behavior; replicating with an open-weight model would show whether the standardization skill is generic to large language models or specific to that model.
  • Because roughly 20% of clinical text is abbreviations, the reported expansion rate of about 16 per note suggests a standardization pass may materially reduce abbreviation-driven ambiguity in notes, though the clinical safety impact was not measured.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a proof-of-concept study in which 1,618 neurology clinic notes are processed by GPT-4 into a standardized JSON format with canonical sections (HISTORY, EXAMINATION, IMPRESSION, PLAN). The authors claim that standardization corrected an average of 4.9 ± 1.8 grammatical errors, 3.3 ± 5.2 spelling errors, 3.1 ± 3.0 non-standard terms, and 15.8 ± 9.1 abbreviations per note. They also report five-point quality ratings for the standardized notes, a review of 20 notes for content loss, and examples of extracting medications and signs/symptoms. The paper concludes that this pipeline improves readability, consistency, and interoperability readiness.

Significance. If the quantitative claims were independently verified, the study would provide a practical benchmark for LLM-based note standardization in a clinical setting. The paper has real strengths: it provides a reproducible prompt and output schema, uses a moderately large corpus of real de-identified notes, and the workflow from free text to JSON to extracted concepts is clearly described. The extracted medication and symptom distributions are plausibly consistent with a neuroimmunology clinic, serving as a useful sanity check. However, the headline numeric results rest on the model's self-reported 'Metrics' field and consensus ratings that include the evaluated model, and the 'efficient' claim in the title is explicitly unmeasured. These issues affect the central quantitative contribution, though the core feasibility observation—that GPT-4 can reformat notes into structured sections—is independently supported by the worked example.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section III; Methods (output structure)] The headline correction counts (4.9 ± 1.8 grammatical errors, 3.3 ± 5.2 spelling errors, 3.1 ± 3.0 non-standard terms, 15.8 ± 9.1 abbreviations) are derived from the 'Metrics' field that GPT-4 itself emits in its JSON output, rather than from an external gold standard. No independent annotation of the 1,618 source notes is described, so these numbers measure the model's self-reported corrections, not verified counts. Please provide a human-annotated validation sample (e.g., 100–200 notes) with inter-annotator agreement, or revise the claims to explicitly state that these are model-reported counts rather than measured corrections.
  2. [Table I; Methods: Standardized Note Evaluation] The quality ratings in Table I are described as a consensus of 'a human expert and GPT-4', which makes the evaluated system a judge of its own output. The rating protocol for the human expert is not described, no agreement measure or disagreement-resolution procedure is reported, and there is no evidence that the human ratings were independent or blinded. Please clarify the rating methodology, use an independent human rater (or at least report blinded ratings and inter-rater reliability), or present these scores as informal impressions rather than quantitative metrics.
  3. [Title; Section III (limitations)] The title and hypothesis describe the approach as 'efficient', but the limitations section explicitly states: 'We did not perform a detailed analysis of the computational costs or processing times for note normalization.' The only support for efficiency is a preliminary estimate of ~20 seconds and $0.01–$0.10 per note, with no measured benchmarks. The term 'efficient' is therefore unsupported by the data. Please either include actual timing/cost measurements or change the title to avoid making an unmeasured efficiency claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III, paragraph 2] The sentence 'we were able to use GPT-4 to perform semi-structured data retrieval on designated parts of the standarized note (Fig. 8' is missing a closing parenthesis; it should read '(Fig. 8).'.
  2. [Section III, paragraph 2] The reference '(Fig. I)' for planned medications appears to be a typo; it should likely be 'Fig. 6' to match the medication figure.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption 'Acronymns and Abbreviations' misspells 'Acronyms'; please correct the spelling.
  4. [Throughout text and figures] The word 'standarized' appears in multiple places (e.g., Fig. 6 caption, Section III text) and should be corrected to 'standardized'.
  5. [Methods, example note] The example note contains the word 'methtylprednisolone'; if this misspelling is intentional to illustrate a source-note error, please mark it as such for clarity.
  6. [Section III, first paragraph] The sentence 'All standardized notes were reviewed by a human expert for completeness, formatting, and accuracy' does not specify the review method, criteria, or whether the reviewer was blinded; please provide details or reconcile this with the later statement that only 20 notes were compared in detail.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central correction counts come from GPT-4's own 'Metrics' output and quality ratings are a consensus with GPT-4, making the headline quantitative evaluation partially self-referential; the core reformatting capability remains independently illustrated by worked examples.

  1. self definitional [Section III (Results and Discussion); Methods (Note Standardization, Metrics JSON structure)]
    "GPT-4 corrected 4.9 ± 1.8 grammatical errors per note, corrected 3.3 ±5.2 spelling errors, identified 3.1 ± 3.0 non-standard terms per note and made appropriate substitutions with medical terms, and expanded 15.8±9.1 abbreviations and acronyms per note."

    The counts are not measured against an external gold standard. The Methods prompt asks GPT-4 to standardize the note and to emit a 'Metrics' object listing 'Grammatical Errors', 'Spelling Errors', 'Non-Standard Terms', and 'Abbreviations Expanded'. The Section III averages are exactly this self-reported Metrics field aggregated over 1,618 notes. Thus the headline claim that 'GPT-4 corrected' these errors is by construction a restatement of GPT-4's own output; the model is both the intervention and the measurement instrument. Without independent annotation or diff-based verification, the reported means and SDs reduce to trusting the model's self-report rather than a derived, externally validated result.

  2. other [Table I, footnote 2]
    "Metrics were a consensus of a human expert and GPT-4."

    The quality ratings in Table I are explicitly a consensus between a human expert and GPT-4, i.e., the system under evaluation participates in judging its own output. Favorable scores therefore are not independent evidence of standardization quality. This is a second self-referential link in the evaluation chain, though the worked examples in the paper provide some independent grounding for the general reformatting capability and the 20-note manual review for content loss is a separate, if limited, check.

full rationale

The paper does not derive a formal mathematical result, so the usual derivation-chain circularity does not apply. However, the central quantitative claims about numbers of errors corrected and abbreviations expanded are taken from GPT-4's own self-reported 'Metrics' field, with no external gold-standard annotation of the source notes. Similarly, the quality ratings in Table I are a consensus between a human expert and GPT-4, making the evaluation partially self-referential. These are genuine measurement-validity concerns and amount to a partial circularity: the reported outcomes are, by construction, the model's own statements about its corrections. The paper's more qualitative capability claim—that notes can be reorganized into canonical sections and reformatted into JSON—is independently grounded in the prompt-output examples and is not circular. There is one minor self-citation (reference [9] by an author) but it is not load-bearing for the standardization result. Because the core transformation is visible in examples and the circularity is confined to the self-reported evaluation metrics, a score of 4 is appropriate rather than a higher score that would imply the entire derivation is forced.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no formal derivation; its central claim rests on the assumption that GPT-4's self-reported corrections and a 20-note manual review are sufficient evidence of safe standardization. There are no fitted mathematical parameters in the usual sense, but the data filter and review sample size are hand-chosen choices that shape the reported statistics.

free parameters (2)
  • 2000-character note length threshold = 2000 characters
    Hand-chosen inclusion filter in Section II Data Acquisition to select notes; excludes shorter notes and affects which notes are in the corpus.
  • 20-note expert review subset = 20 notes
    Hand-chosen sample size for detailed loss-of-content review; no power analysis or random-sampling details are given in the full text.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption GPT-4's text processing preserves clinical meaning when instructed to fix errors
    The whole standardization pipeline relies on the model not introducing or deleting clinical information; only 20 notes were manually checked.
  • domain assumption Notes from one neurology clinic with neuroimmunological diagnoses are representative enough to support general claims
    The authors themselves list the single-clinic, single-specialty dataset as a limitation in Section III.
  • domain assumption REDCap de-identification is sufficient to protect patient privacy when sending notes to an external API
    The paper sends de-identified notes to GPT-4 but does not analyze potential re-identification or data retention risks; this is assumed without testing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Standardization of Clinical Notes using Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TCGKBIJ

@misc{pith2026250100644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Standardization of Clinical Notes using Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TCGKBIJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00644}
}
abstract

Clinician notes are a rich source of patient information but often contain inconsistencies due to varied writing styles, colloquialisms, abbreviations, medical jargon, grammatical errors, and non-standard formatting. These inconsistencies hinder the extraction of meaningful data from electronic health records (EHRs), posing challenges for quality improvement, population health, precision medicine, decision support, and research. We present a large language model approach to standardizing a corpus of 1,618 clinical notes. Standardization corrected an average of $4.9 +/- 1.8$ grammatical errors, $3.3 +/- 5.2$ spelling errors, converted $3.1 +/- 3.0$ non-standard terms to standard terminology, and expanded $15.8 +/- 9.1$ abbreviations and acronyms per note. Additionally, notes were re-organized into canonical sections with standardized headings. This process prepared notes for key concept extraction, mapping to medical ontologies, and conversion to interoperable data formats such as FHIR. Expert review of randomly sampled notes found no significant data loss after standardization. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates that standardization of clinical notes can improve their readability, consistency, and usability, while also facilitating their conversion into interoperable data formats.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Note Length. Mean note length in characters was 6420 ± 3691 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Acronymns and Abbreviations. Normalization expanded a mean of 15.8 ± 9.1 acronyms and abbreviations per note. ambiguous abbreviations based on context. Mean note length was approximately 6,420 characters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Grammatical Errors. Note normalization corrected a mean of 4.9 ± 1.8 grammatical errors per note [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Slang, Jargon, and Non-Standard Terms. GPT-4 identified and corrected a mean of 3.1 ± 3.0 non-standard terms per note. An example of a non-standard term substitution is “feeling blue” → ”symptoms of depression” can be converted into HL7 FHIR-compatible ‘observations,’ …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spelling Errors. GPT-4 identified and corrected a mean of 3.3 ± 5.2 spelling errors per note [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Workflow for Structured Data Extraction, Mapping, and Re￾formatting. Steps from note standardization to creating interoperable data formats such as JSON and FHIR. to clinical documentation. Systemic improvements must ad￾dress fundamental questions, such as workforce de…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Benefits and drawbacks of electronic health record systems,

    N. Menachemi and T. H. Collum, “Benefits and drawbacks of electronic health record systems,” Risk management and healthcare policy , pp. 47– 55, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Handwriting errors: harmful, wasteful and preventable,

    A. Bruner and M. L. Kasdan, “Handwriting errors: harmful, wasteful and preventable,” Journal-Kentucky Medical Association , vol. 99, no. 5, pp. 189–192, 2001

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Deciphering the physician note,

    E. A. Kozak, R. S. Dittus, W. R. Smith, J. F. Fitzgerald, and C. D. Langfeld, “Deciphering the physician note,” Journal of general internal medicine, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 52–54, 1994

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Illegible handwriting in medical records,

    F. J. Rodr ´ıguez-Vera, Y . Marin, A. Sanchez, C. Borrachero, and E. Pujol, “Illegible handwriting in medical records,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine , vol. 95, no. 11, pp. 545–546, 2002

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    Electronic health records and physician burnout: a scoping review,

    R. Muhiyaddin, A. Elfadl, E. Mohamed, Z. Shah, T. Alam, A. Abd- Alrazaq, and M. Househ, “Electronic health records and physician burnout: a scoping review,” Informatics and Technology in Clinical Care and Public Health , pp. 481–484, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Physician burnout in the electronic health record era: are we ignoring the real cause?

    N. L. Downing, D. W. Bates, and C. A. Longhurst, “Physician burnout in the electronic health record era: are we ignoring the real cause?” pp. 50–51, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Electronic health records, medical practice problems, and physician distress,

    M. Elliott, M. Padua, and T. L. Schwenk, “Electronic health records, medical practice problems, and physician distress,”International Journal of Behavioral Medicine , pp. 1–6, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    How health information technology is failing to achieve its full potential,

    A. E. Carroll, “How health information technology is failing to achieve its full potential,” JAMA pediatrics, vol. 169, no. 3, pp. 201–202, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    It’s time to change our documentation philosophy: writing better neurology notes without the burnout,

    J. M. Rodr ´ıguez-Fern´andez, J. A. Loeb, and D. B. Hier, “It’s time to change our documentation philosophy: writing better neurology notes without the burnout,” Frontiers in Digital Health , vol. 4, p. 1063141, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Physician information needs and electronic health records (ehrs): time to reengineer the clinic note,

    R. J. Koopman, L. M. B. Steege, J. L. Moore, M. A. Clarke, S. M. Canfield, M. S. Kim, and J. L. Belden, “Physician information needs and electronic health records (ehrs): time to reengineer the clinic note,” The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine , vol. 28, no. 3...

    2015

  3. [11]

    Burnout related to electronic health record use in primary care,

    J. Budd, “Burnout related to electronic health record use in primary care,” Journal of primary care & community health , vol. 14, p. 21501319231166921, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Enhancing health data interoperability with large language models: A fhir study,

    Y . Li, H. Wang, H. Yerebakan, Y . Shinagawa, and Y . Luo, “Enhancing health data interoperability with large language models: A fhir study,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12989 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Clinical text summarization: adapting large language models can outperform human experts,

    D. Van Veen, C. Van Uden, L. Blankemeier, J.-B. Delbrouck, A. Aali, C. Bluethgen, A. Pareek, M. Polacin, E. P. Reis, A. Seehofnerova et al. , “Clinical text summarization: adapting large language models can outperform human experts,” Research Square, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Evaluating large language models on medical evidence summarization,

    L. Tang, Z. Sun, B. Idnay, J. G. Nestor, A. Soroush, P. A. Elias, Z. Xu, Y . Ding, G. Durrett, J. F. Rousseau et al. , “Evaluating large language models on medical evidence summarization,” NPJ digital medicine , vol. 6, no. 1, p. 158, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Considerations for health care institutions training large language models on electronic health records,

    W. Zhou, D. Bitterman, M. Afshar, and T. A. Miller, “Considerations for health care institutions training large language models on electronic health records,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12339 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Large ai models in health informatics: Applications, challenges, and the future,

    J. Qiu, L. Li, J. Sun, J. Peng, P. Shi, R. Zhang, Y . Dong, K. Lam, F. P.-W. Lo, B. Xiao et al., “Large ai models in health informatics: Applications, challenges, and the future,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Are large language models ready for healthcare,

    Y . Wang, Y . Zhao, and L. Petzold, “Are large language models ready for healthcare,” A Comparative Study on Clinical Language Understanding. ArXiv, abs/2304.05368, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Challenges and opportunities to improve the clinician experience reviewing electronic progress notes,

    G. M. Hultman, J. L. Marquard, E. Lindemann, E. Arsoniadis, S. Pakho- mov, and G. B. Melton, “Challenges and opportunities to improve the clinician experience reviewing electronic progress notes,” Applied clinical informatics , vol. 10, no. 03, pp. 446–453, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Disambiguation of acronyms in clinical narratives with large language models,

    A. Kugic, S. Schulz, and M. Kreuzthaler, “Disambiguation of acronyms in clinical narratives with large language models,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 2040– 2046, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    When i use a word... medical slang: a taxonomy,

    J. K. Aronson, “When i use a word... medical slang: a taxonomy,” 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Babel babble: physicians’ use of unclarified medical jargon with patients,

    C. M. Castro, C. Wilson, F. Wang, and D. Schillinger, “Babel babble: physicians’ use of unclarified medical jargon with patients,” American journal of health behavior , vol. 31, no. 1, pp. S85–S95, 2007

    2007

  14. [22]

    Literature review of snomed ct use,

    D. Lee, N. de Keizer, F. Lau, and R. Cornet, “Literature review of snomed ct use,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Associa- tion, vol. 21, no. e1, pp. e11–e19, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    An efficient prototype method to identify and correct misspellings in clinical text,

    T. E. Workman, Y . Shao, G. Divita, and Q. Zeng-Treitler, “An efficient prototype method to identify and correct misspellings in clinical text,” BMC research notes , vol. 12, pp. 1–5, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Electronic health record documentation patterns of recorded primary care visits focused on complex communication: a qualitative study,

    L. Prater, A. Sanchez, G. Modan, J. Burgess, K. Frier, N. Richards, and S. Bose-Brill, “Electronic health record documentation patterns of recorded primary care visits focused on complex communication: a qualitative study,”Applied Clinical Informatics, vol. 10, no. 02, pp. 247...

    2019

  17. [25]

    Eradicating jargon-oblivion—a proposed classification system of medical jargon,

    M. B. Pitt and M. A. Hendrickson, “Eradicating jargon-oblivion—a proposed classification system of medical jargon,” Journal of general internal medicine , vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1861–1864, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Frequency, comprehension and attitudes of physicians towards abbreviations in the medical record,

    U. Hamiel, I. Hecht, A. Nemet, L. Pe’er, V . Man, A. Hilely, and A. Achiron, “Frequency, comprehension and attitudes of physicians towards abbreviations in the medical record,” Postgraduate Medical Journal, vol. 94, no. 1111, pp. 254–258, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    A randomized-controlled trial of computerized alerts to reduce unapproved medication abbreviation use,

    J. S. Myers, S. Gojraty, W. Yang, A. Linsky, S. Airan-Javia, and R. C. Polomano, “A randomized-controlled trial of computerized alerts to reduce unapproved medication abbreviation use,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 17–23, 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Prohibited abbreviations: seeking to educate, not enforce,

    K. Horon, K. Hayek, and C. Montgomery, “Prohibited abbreviations: seeking to educate, not enforce,” The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, vol. 65, no. 4, p. 294, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Audit on the use of dangerous abbreviations, symbols, and dose designations in paper compared to electronic medication orders: A multicenter study,

    S. Cheung, S. Hoi, O. Fernandes, J. Huh, S. Kynicos, L. Murphy, and D. Lowe, “Audit on the use of dangerous abbreviations, symbols, and dose designations in paper compared to electronic medication orders: A multicenter study,” Annals of Pharmacotherapy , vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 33...

    2018

  22. [30]

    Avoiding potential medication errors associated with non-intuitive medication abbrevia- tions,

    J. Shultz, L. Strosher, S. N. Nathoo, and J. Manley, “Avoiding potential medication errors associated with non-intuitive medication abbrevia- tions,” The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy , vol. 64, no. 4, p. 246, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Campaign to eliminate use of error-prone abbreviations,

    D. E. Baker, “Campaign to eliminate use of error-prone abbreviations,” pp. 809–810, 2006

    2006

  24. [32]

    Medi- cation safety issue brief. eliminating dangerous abbreviations, acronyms and symbols,

    A. H. Association, A. S. of Health-System Pharmacists et al. , “Medi- cation safety issue brief. eliminating dangerous abbreviations, acronyms and symbols,” Hospitals & health networks , vol. 79, no. 6, pp. 41–42, 2005

    2005

  25. [33]

    Advances in electronic phenotyping: from rule-based definitions to machine learning models,

    J. M. Banda, M. Seneviratne, T. Hernandez-Boussard, and N. H. Shah, “Advances in electronic phenotyping: from rule-based definitions to machine learning models,” Annual review of biomedical data science , vol. 1, p. 53, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Loinc, a universal standard for identifying laboratory observations: a 5-year update,

    C. J. McDonald, S. M. Huff, J. G. Suico, G. Hill, D. Leavelle, R. Aller, A. Forrey, K. Mercer, G. DeMoor, J. Hook et al. , “Loinc, a universal standard for identifying laboratory observations: a 5-year update,” Clinical chemistry , vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 624–633, 2003

    2003

  27. [35]

    Building a drug ontology based on rxnorm and other sources,

    J. Hanna, E. Joseph, M. Brochhausen, and W. R. Hogan, “Building a drug ontology based on rxnorm and other sources,” Journal of biomedical semantics , vol. 4, pp. 1–9, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    Comparison of the accuracy of inpatient morbidity coding with icd-11 and icd-10,

    J. Zarei, R. Golpira, N. Hashemi, Z. Azadmanjir, Z. Meidani, A. Vahedi, H. Bakhshandeh, E. Fakharian, and A. Sheikhtaheri, “Comparison of the accuracy of inpatient morbidity coding with icd-11 and icd-10,” Health Information Management Journal , p. 18333583231185355, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Grammar and medicine,

    B. J. Ficarra, “Grammar and medicine,” Archives of Surgery , vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 251–252, 1981

    1981

  30. [38]

    Incidence of speech recognition errors in the emergency department,

    F. R. Goss, L. Zhou, and S. G. Weiner, “Incidence of speech recognition errors in the emergency department,” International journal of medical informatics, vol. 93, pp. 70–73, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Hl7 fhir: An agile and restful approach to healthcare information exchange,

    D. Bender and K. Sartipi, “Hl7 fhir: An agile and restful approach to healthcare information exchange,” in Proceedings of the 26th IEEE international symposium on computer-based medical systems . IEEE, 2013, pp. 326–331

    2013

  32. [40]

    Fast healthcare interoperability resources (fhir) for interoperability in health research: systematic review,

    C. N. V orisek, M. Lehne, S. A. I. Klopfenstein, P. J. Mayer, A. Bartschke, T. Haese, and S. Thun, “Fast healthcare interoperability resources (fhir) for interoperability in health research: systematic review,” JMIR medical informatics, vol. 10, no. 7, p. e35724, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Research electronic data capture (redcap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support,

    P. A. Harris, R. Taylor, R. Thielke, J. Payne, N. Gonzalez, and J. G. Conde, “Research electronic data capture (redcap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support,” Journal of biomedical informatics , vol. 42, no...

    2009

  34. [42]

    Challenges and opportunities beyond structured data in analysis of electronic health records,

    M. Tayefi, P. Ngo, T. Chomutare, H. Dalianis, E. Salvi, A. Budrionis, and F. Godtliebsen, “Challenges and opportunities beyond structured data in analysis of electronic health records,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics , vol. 13, no. 6, p. e1549, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Copy and paste: a remediable hazard of electronic health records,

    E. L. Siegler and R. Adelman, “Copy and paste: a remediable hazard of electronic health records,” The American journal of medicine , vol. 122, no. 6, pp. 495–496, 2009

    2009

  36. [44]

    How accurate is the medical record? a comparison of the physician’s note with a concealed audio recording in unannounced standardized patient encounters,

    S. J. Weiner, S. Wang, B. Kelly, G. Sharma, and A. Schwartz, “How accurate is the medical record? a comparison of the physician’s note with a concealed audio recording in unannounced standardized patient encounters,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , vo...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Questionable hos- pital chart documentation practices by physicians,

    R. Sharma, W. J. Kostis, A. C. Wilson, N. M. Cosgrove, A. L. Hassett, A. E. Moreyra, C. D. Delnevo, and J. B. Kostis, “Questionable hos- pital chart documentation practices by physicians,” Journal of general internal medicine , vol. 23, pp. 1865–1870, 2008

    2008

  38. [46]

    Can informatics innovation help mitigate clinician burnout?

    S. Bakken, “Can informatics innovation help mitigate clinician burnout?” pp. 93–94, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Physician burnout in the electronic health record era,

    M. Kapoor, “Physician burnout in the electronic health record era,” Annals of internal medicine , vol. 170, no. 3, p. 216, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Interventions to reduce electronic health record- related burnout: a systematic review,

    C. Kang and N. Sarkar, “Interventions to reduce electronic health record- related burnout: a systematic review,” Applied Clinical Informatics , 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Effect of outpatient note templates on note quality: Note (notation optimization through template engineering) randomized clinical trial,

    J. A. Epstein, J. Cofrancesco, M. C. Beach, A. Bertram, H. F. Hedian, S. Mixter, H.-C. Yeh, and G. Berkenblit, “Effect of outpatient note templates on note quality: Note (notation optimization through template engineering) randomized clinical trial,” Journal of general interna...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Clinical thinking via electronic note templates: who benefits?

    A. Savoy, R. Frankel, and M. Weiner, “Clinical thinking via electronic note templates: who benefits?” pp. 577–579, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    The impact of structured and standardized documentation on documentation quality; a multicenter, retrospective study,

    T. Ebbers, R. B. Kool, L. E. Smeele, R. Dirven, C. A. den Besten, L. H. Karssemakers, T. Verhoeven, J. M. Herruer, G. B. van den Broek, and R. P. Takes, “The impact of structured and standardized documentation on documentation quality; a multicenter, retrospective study,” Jour...

    2022

  44. [52]

    Scaling note quality assess- ment across an academic medical center with ai and gpt-4,

    A. HochmanKatherine, G. Vincent et al. , “Scaling note quality assess- ment across an academic medical center with ai and gpt-4,” NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery , 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Qnote: an instrument for measuring the quality of ehr clinical notes,

    H. B. Burke, A. Hoang, D. Becher, P. Fontelo, F. Liu, M. Stephens, L. N. Pangaro, L. L. Sessums, P. O’Malley, N. S. Baxi et al. , “Qnote: an instrument for measuring the quality of ehr clinical notes,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , vol. 21, no. 5, p...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.