(A001) Ambient Artificial Intelligence in Otolaryngology: Scoping Review and State of the Market

Introduction: The use of ambient artificial intelligence (AI) in medical documentation is rapidly expanding. Starting with zero commercially available products at the end of 2022, there are now over two dozen data-backed platforms, many of which are already in use at major academic medical centers. Despite being trialed in primary care, dermatology, and emergency medicine, there are no studies to-date evaluating ambient AI’s use in ENT-based practices.

Methods: We perform a scoping review of ambient AI platforms currently available for implementation in otolaryngologic practices, examine the current literature around their use, and delineate what factors clinicians should consider when choosing from the multitude of options.

Results: Myriad factors may influence providers’ choice of platform. Cost, availability of shorter subscriptions, ease of integration into the electronic medical record, degree of training required before implementation, HIPAA compliance and degree of encryption, post-visit editing requirements, inclusion of commonly spoken languages and ability to exclude translator interlocution, and availability of free trials prior to purchase may all influence stakeholder preference. Attention to the nuances of conversation, such as fluency and prosody, may play a particularly significant role for a specialty so highly attuned to the study and treatment of human perception and communication. Inclusion of ENT-specific procedure codes, diagnoses, and suggested orders will be essential. Generation of imaging interpretations or comparisons (i.e., parotid mass has grown X% between 2019 and 2024 MRIs) may streamline providers’ assessments. As AI adopts biases borne of its training data, clinicians must ensure that training datasets represent the diverse ethnicities, languages, and socioeconomic backgrounds of their patients.

Conclusions: The rapid expansion of any technology is often accompanied by early growing pains. Though cost remains an important deciding factor, adopters should also consider specialty and practice-specific factors when assessing what technology may best suit their practice.