Doctors spend much of each visit collecting the patient's medical history, and incomplete histories can delay diagnosis. This study tests an AI chatbot that interviews patients before their appointment and produces a structured summary of their history for the doctor. Adult patients at the first study site, a university gynecology outpatient clinic in Germany, answer the chatbot's questions on a tablet before the doctor visit. The doctor then takes the history and examines the patient as usual, without seeing the chatbot's output. Only after the doctor has finished planning care does the doctor review the chatbot's summary and rate its usefulness and accuracy. The chatbot does not change patient care. Patients also rate the ease of use and acceptability of the chatbot. The investigators will report how useful doctors find the summaries, how complete and correct the summaries are, and how patients experience the tool.
None
None
Adult women presenting for the first time, or with a new complaint, to the general gynecology outpatient clinic, the gynecology emergency clinic, or as referrals to the gynecology outpatient clinic at the first study site (Leipzig University Hospital, Germany). Patients are recruited consecutively in the clinic waiting area by trained study staff. Additional sites may be added later.
Cohort
Prospective
AI-Based Structured History-Taking Chatbot
Other interventionA large language model-based agentic chatbot that conducts a structured, pre-visit history interview on a study tablet and generates a history summary, differential diagnosis list, and workup suggestions. The output is released to the treating physician only after the physician has completed an independent history, examination, and care plan, and does not influence patient care.
Proportion of AI history summaries rated useful by the evaluating physician
After completing routine care, the treating physician rates the usefulness of the AI-generated history summary on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not useful at all, 5 = very useful). The outcome is the proportion of summaries rated 4 or higher, reported with a 95% Wilson confidence interval.
Completeness of the AI-generated history
Percentage of items from a standardized history grid that the AI captured correctly, reported overall and by history domain.
Correctness of the AI-generated history
Proportion of factually incorrect or missing clinically relevant items in the AI history, per physician review.
Plausibility of AI differential diagnoses
Physician rating of plausibility on a 1-5 Likert scale, and concordance of the AI differential with the physician's working diagnosis.
Plausibility of AI workup recommendations
Physician rating of the AI's suggested diagnostic workup on a 1-5 Likert scale.
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
Massachusetts General Hospital
Lead sponsor
University of Leipzig
Collaborator
This trial is not recruiting at the moment. You can still explore other options:
