Benjamin S Hopkins, Jonathan Dallas, James Yu, Robert G Briggs, Lawrance K Chung, David J Cote, David Gomez, Ishan Shah, John D Carmichael, John C Liu, William J Mack, Gabriel Zada
{"title":"基于生成式人工智能的听写在神经外科实践中的应用:一项试点研究。","authors":"Benjamin S Hopkins, Jonathan Dallas, James Yu, Robert G Briggs, Lawrance K Chung, David J Cote, David Gomez, Ishan Shah, John D Carmichael, John C Liu, William J Mack, Gabriel Zada","doi":"10.3171/2025.4.FOCUS24834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Document dictation remains a significant clinical burden and generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems utilizing transformer-based technology offer efficient speech processing methods that could streamline clinical documentation. This study aimed to evaluate the potential of generative AI in enhancing dictation efficiency and workflow within a targeted neurosurgical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten operative reports from both cranial and spinal neurosurgical procedures were dictated and recorded by three independent physicians. The audio files were processed by 1) a modified speech-to-text model implemented based on a backbone architecture created by OpenAI's Whisper model and 2) Nuance's Dragon Medical One as a comparative commercial standard. Word error rate (WER) was manually reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean WER was 1.75% for Whisper and 1.54% for Dragon (p = 0.080). When excluding linguistic errors, Whisper outperformed Dragon with a mean WER of 0.50% versus 1.34% (p < 0.001), including the mean number of total errors (Whisper: 6.1, Dragon: 9.7; p = 0.002). For all unstratified dictations, a positive correlation was seen between total errors and word count (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.37), as well as total errors and recording length (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.22). A positive correlation was noted between words spoken per second and total errors for Dragon (p = 0.020, R2 = 0.18), but not for Whisper (p = 0.205, R2 = 0.06). Similarly, when analyzing linguistic errors only, this trend held for Dragon (p = 0.014, R2 = 0.20), but not for Whisper (p = 0.331, R2 = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An AI-based model performed at a noninferior rate compared to a commercially available speech-to-text dictation program. Generative models provide potential benefits such as contextual inference that show promise in limiting errors with increased dictation speed or adjustment for impure input data.</p>","PeriodicalId":19187,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical focus","volume":"59 1","pages":"E8"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The use of generative artificial intelligence-based dictation in a neurosurgical practice: a pilot study.\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin S Hopkins, Jonathan Dallas, James Yu, Robert G Briggs, Lawrance K Chung, David J Cote, David Gomez, Ishan Shah, John D Carmichael, John C Liu, William J Mack, Gabriel Zada\",\"doi\":\"10.3171/2025.4.FOCUS24834\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Document dictation remains a significant clinical burden and generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems utilizing transformer-based technology offer efficient speech processing methods that could streamline clinical documentation. This study aimed to evaluate the potential of generative AI in enhancing dictation efficiency and workflow within a targeted neurosurgical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten operative reports from both cranial and spinal neurosurgical procedures were dictated and recorded by three independent physicians. The audio files were processed by 1) a modified speech-to-text model implemented based on a backbone architecture created by OpenAI's Whisper model and 2) Nuance's Dragon Medical One as a comparative commercial standard. Word error rate (WER) was manually reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean WER was 1.75% for Whisper and 1.54% for Dragon (p = 0.080). When excluding linguistic errors, Whisper outperformed Dragon with a mean WER of 0.50% versus 1.34% (p < 0.001), including the mean number of total errors (Whisper: 6.1, Dragon: 9.7; p = 0.002). For all unstratified dictations, a positive correlation was seen between total errors and word count (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.37), as well as total errors and recording length (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.22). A positive correlation was noted between words spoken per second and total errors for Dragon (p = 0.020, R2 = 0.18), but not for Whisper (p = 0.205, R2 = 0.06). Similarly, when analyzing linguistic errors only, this trend held for Dragon (p = 0.014, R2 = 0.20), but not for Whisper (p = 0.331, R2 = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An AI-based model performed at a noninferior rate compared to a commercially available speech-to-text dictation program. Generative models provide potential benefits such as contextual inference that show promise in limiting errors with increased dictation speed or adjustment for impure input data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurosurgical focus\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"E8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurosurgical focus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3171/2025.4.FOCUS24834\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical focus","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2025.4.FOCUS24834","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The use of generative artificial intelligence-based dictation in a neurosurgical practice: a pilot study.
Objective: Document dictation remains a significant clinical burden and generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems utilizing transformer-based technology offer efficient speech processing methods that could streamline clinical documentation. This study aimed to evaluate the potential of generative AI in enhancing dictation efficiency and workflow within a targeted neurosurgical practice.
Methods: Ten operative reports from both cranial and spinal neurosurgical procedures were dictated and recorded by three independent physicians. The audio files were processed by 1) a modified speech-to-text model implemented based on a backbone architecture created by OpenAI's Whisper model and 2) Nuance's Dragon Medical One as a comparative commercial standard. Word error rate (WER) was manually reviewed.
Results: The mean WER was 1.75% for Whisper and 1.54% for Dragon (p = 0.080). When excluding linguistic errors, Whisper outperformed Dragon with a mean WER of 0.50% versus 1.34% (p < 0.001), including the mean number of total errors (Whisper: 6.1, Dragon: 9.7; p = 0.002). For all unstratified dictations, a positive correlation was seen between total errors and word count (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.37), as well as total errors and recording length (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.22). A positive correlation was noted between words spoken per second and total errors for Dragon (p = 0.020, R2 = 0.18), but not for Whisper (p = 0.205, R2 = 0.06). Similarly, when analyzing linguistic errors only, this trend held for Dragon (p = 0.014, R2 = 0.20), but not for Whisper (p = 0.331, R2 = 0.03).
Conclusions: An AI-based model performed at a noninferior rate compared to a commercially available speech-to-text dictation program. Generative models provide potential benefits such as contextual inference that show promise in limiting errors with increased dictation speed or adjustment for impure input data.