Skip to main content

This is a preprint.

It has not yet been peer reviewed by a journal.

The National Library of Medicine is running a pilot to include preprints that result from research funded by NIH in PMC and PubMed.

Research Square logoLink to Research Square
[Preprint]. 2024 Aug 17:rs.3.rs-4727659. [Version 1] doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4727659/v1

Assessing the Effectiveness of Automatic Speech Recognition Technology in Emergency Medicine Settings: A Comparative Study of Four AI-powered Engines

Xiao Luo, Le Zhou, Kathleen Adelgais, Zhan Zhang
PMCID: PMC11343293  PMID: 39184074

Abstract

Purpose Cutting-edge automatic speech recognition (ASR) technology holds significant promise in transcribing and recognizing medical information during patient encounters, thereby enabling automatic and real-time clinical documentation, which could significantly alleviate care clinicians’ burdens. Nevertheless, the performance of current-generation ASR technology in analyzing conversations in noisy and dynamic medical settings, such as prehospital or Emergency Medical Services (EMS), lacks sufficient validation. This study explores the current technological limitations and future potential of deploying ASR technology for clinical documentation in fast-paced and noisy medical settings such as EMS. Methods In this study, we evaluated four ASR engines, including Google Speech-to-Text Clinical Conversation, OpenAI Speech-to-Text, Amazon Transcribe Medical, and Azure Speech-to-Text engine. The empirical data used for evaluation were 40 EMS simulation recordings. The transcribed texts were analyzed for accuracy against 23 Electronic Health Records (EHR) categories of EMS. The common types of errors in transcription were also analyzed. Results Among all four ASR engines, Google Speech-to-Text Clinical Conversation performed the best. Among all EHR categories, better performance was observed in categories “mental state” (F1 = 1.0), “allergies” (F1 = 0.917), “past medical history” (F1 = 0.804), “electrolytes” (F1 = 1.0), and “blood glucose level” (F1 = 0.813). However, all four ASR engines demonstrated low performance in transcribing certain critical categories, such as “treatment” (F1 = 0.650) and “medication” (F1 = 0.577). Conclusion Current ASR solutions fall short in fully automating the clinical documentation in EMS setting. Our findings highlight the need for further improvement and development of automated clinical documentation technology to improve recognition accuracy in time-critical and dynamic medical settings.

Full Text

The Full Text of this preprint is available as a PDF (1.8 MB). The Web version will be available soon.


Articles from Research Square are provided here courtesy of American Journal Experts

RESOURCES