Communication SkillsNCT07107880
Use of Artificial Intelligence to Assess Trainee Communication Compared to Human Assessment
A study testing Communication Assessment through AI and Human in people with Communication Skills, run by Stanford University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This study will evaluate whether a web-based artificial intelligence platform (AI) (Clinical Mind AI [CMAI] Stanford, CA), can assess communication skills in anesthesiology trainees, including residents and fellows, in the setting of disclosing medical errors. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 99 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Communication Skills
- What is being tested?
- Communication Assessment through AI and Human
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 10 Nov 2025to 11 Aug 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 99 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Participant's must be 18 years of age or older
- Graduate medical trainess such as residents and fellows at all levels of training excluding PGY1 trainees at Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine at Stanford University
- Able to speak and understand English
- Willing and able to provide consent to participate in research
- Able to participate in Artificial Intelligence communication simulation
Who cannot join
- Non-English speaker
- unable to provide consent to participate in research
- individual with no access to the necessary technology (internet, computer/smart device) required for participating in the digital, voice-based interaction with the AI platform
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Stanford
Palo Alto, California, 94304
About this study
Official title: Artificial Intelligence Assessment of Trainee Communication Compared to Human Assessment: A Prospective Cohort Study
This study will evaluate whether a web-based artificial intelligence platform (AI) (Clinical Mind AI [CMAI] Stanford, CA), can assess communication skills in anesthesiology trainees, including residents and fellows, in the setting of disclosing medical errors. All participants will participate in an AI-generated simulation by using the platform remotely, and CMAI will assess trainee performance immediately after the simulation.
Read the detailed description
The goal of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of CMAI platform to assess participant performance following a voice-based AI simulation designed to help trainees practice disclosing medical errors. The platform will feature a custom clinical case, created using CMAI's patient creation tool, involving a discussion with the parent of a child who suffered a dental injury that occurred during intubation. The platform will provide an audio-based, simulated encounter with the parent enabling the participant to interact with, and then assess trainee communication performance, followed by the delivery of questionnaires to the trainee to determine usability and satisfaction. A human evaluator will also assess the trainees' performance using the same scales, and the investigators will compare the AI performance evaluation to the human evaluation. This study will allow the investigators to determine:
- Reliability of the performance assessments of the CMAI platform compared to human raters
- Usability for the CMAI audio voice model for simulated patient encounters
- Satisfaction related to an innovative, educational technique
By evaluating these domains, we aim to determine the educational value of using simulated voice communication for training in emotionally complex, clinical scenarios.
- Conditions
- Communication Skills
- Being tested
- Communication Assessment through AI and Human
- Keywords
- Voice Artificial Intelligence (AI), Simulation, Clinical Mind Artificial Intelligence (CMAI), Medical Error Disclosure
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Communication Assessment through AI and HumanOther
Participants will remotely engage in an AI-generated simulation that presents an voice-based conversation with a simulated parent of a pediatric patient. The scenario involves discussing a clinical scenario concerning their child. Following the simulation, the participant's communication skills will be assessed using an artificial intelligence (AI) system trained to evaluate the key aspects of communication using standardized rating scales. In addition, two human evaluators will assess the participant's communication skills using the same rating scales.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Voice Artificial Intelligence (AI) Group | Experimental | Participants will remotely engage with an AI-simulated parent of a pediatric patient through a voice call, discussing a clinical scenario concerning their child. The participant's communication skills will be assessed using an artificial intelligence (AI) system and two human evaluators using the same rating scales. Receives: Other: Communication Assessment through AI and Human |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Reliability of AI Conversational Performance Assessment
The primary outcome is to evaluate the reliability of the Clinical Mind AI (CMAI) platform in accurately assessing the communication skills of medical education trainees during a simulated interaction. To measure this outcome, the CMAI will use the Breaking Bad News Assessment Schedule (BBAS), a validated tool assessing participant's communication skills in five domains: 1) Setting the scene, 2) Breaking the news, 3) Eliciting concerns, 4) Informative giving, and 5) Empathy and Support. It includes 17 items, each with sub questions, rated on a 5-point Likert scale from (1-5), where score meanings may vary by each question.
The scoring will be guided by Breaking Bad News Rubric, which outlines performance criteria for each item on the BBAS. In addition, two trained human evaluators will independently asses the participant's communication skills using the same BBAS tool and rubric. Lastly, both CMAI and human scores will be compared to determine the reliability of the CMAI platform.
Measured: Immediately after the simulation
Secondary outcomes (2)
Usability of CMAI Simulation Platform
The perceived usability of the CMAI platform will be evaluated using a usability questionnaire. This questionnaire consists of 14 items, each offering five different response options. Participants will rate each item on a scale from 1 - 5, where score meanings may vary by each question.
Measured: immediatley after the simulation
Satisfaction of CMAI Simulation
Participant's satisfaction levels will be evaluated using a modified version of the Questionnaire on Satisfaction with Teaching Innovation (QSTI) Survey. The survey consists of five items, each rated on a scale of 1-5, where 1= Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Higher scores indicate increased satisfaction levels.
Measured: immediately after the simulation
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Aug 2025
- Study start10 Nov 2025
- Primary completion11 Aug 2026
- Study completion11 Aug 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Communication SkillsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Stanford UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Stanford University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Thomas Caruso, Stanford University
- Investigators
- Thomas Caruso, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, Stanford University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07107880
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 81684
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 23 Jul 2025
- Last updated
- 28 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Artificial Intelligence Assessment of Trainee Communication Compared to Human Assessment: A Prospective Cohort Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07107880
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 81684
- Conditions
- Communication Skills
- Keywords
- Voice Artificial Intelligence (AI), Simulation, Clinical Mind Artificial Intelligence (CMAI), Medical Error Disclosure
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Stanford UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 10 Nov 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 11 Aug 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 11 Aug 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Aug 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study will evaluate whether a web-based artificial intelligence platform (AI) (Clinical Mind AI [CMAI] Stanford, CA), can assess communication skills in anesthesiology trainees, including residents and fellows, in the setting of disclosing medical errors. All participants will participate in an AI-generated simulation by using the platform remotely, and CMAI will assess trainee performance immediately after the simulation.
Detailed description
The goal of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of CMAI platform to assess participant performance following a voice-based AI simulation designed to help trainees practice disclosing medical errors. The platform will feature a custom clinical case, created using CMAI's patient creation tool, involving a discussion with the parent of a child who suffered a dental injury that occurred during intubation. The platform will provide an audio-based, simulated encounter with the parent enabling the participant to interact with, and then assess trainee communication performance, followed by the delivery of questionnaires to the trainee to determine usability and satisfaction. A human evaluator will also assess the trainees' performance using the same scales, and the investigators will compare the AI performance evaluation to the human evaluation. This study will allow the investigators to determine:
- Reliability of the performance assessments of the CMAI platform compared to human raters
- Usability for the CMAI audio voice model for simulated patient encounters
- Satisfaction related to an innovative, educational technique
By evaluating these domains, we aim to determine the educational value of using simulated voice communication for training in emotionally complex, clinical scenarios.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Voice Artificial Intelligence (AI) Group | Experimental | Other: Communication Assessment through AI and HumanParticipants will remotely engage with an AI-simulated parent of a pediatric patient through a voice call, discussing a clinical scenario concerning their child. The participant's communication skills will be assessed using an artificial intelligence (AI) system and two human evaluators using the same rating scales. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 99 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Participant's must be 18 years of age or older
- Graduate medical trainess such as residents and fellows at all levels of training excluding PGY1 trainees at Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine at Stanford University
- Able to speak and understand English
- Willing and able to provide consent to participate in research
- Able to participate in Artificial Intelligence communication simulation
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Non-English speaker
- unable to provide consent to participate in research
- individual with no access to the necessary technology (internet, computer/smart device) required for participating in the digital, voice-based interaction with the AI platform
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Communication Assessment through AI and HumanParticipants will remotely engage in an AI-generated simulation that presents an voice-based conversation with a simulated parent of a pediatric patient. The scenario involves discussing a clinical scenario concerning their child. Following the simulation, the participant's communication skills will be assessed using an artificial intelligence (AI) system trained to evaluate the key aspects of communication using standardized rating scales. In addition, two human evaluators will assess the participant's communication skills using the same rating scales. | Other | Voice Artificial Intelligence (AI) Group |
Primary outcome
Reliability of AI Conversational Performance Assessment
Time frame: Immediately after the simulation
The primary outcome is to evaluate the reliability of the Clinical Mind AI (CMAI) platform in accurately assessing the communication skills of medical education trainees during a simulated interaction. To measure this outcome, the CMAI will use the Breaking Bad News Assessment Schedule (BBAS), a validated tool assessing participant's communication skills in five domains: 1) Setting the scene, 2) Breaking the news, 3) Eliciting concerns, 4) Informative giving, and 5) Empathy and Support. It includes 17 items, each with sub questions, rated on a 5-point Likert scale from (1-5), where score meanings may vary by each question. The scoring will be guided by Breaking Bad News Rubric, which outlines performance criteria for each item on the BBAS. In addition, two trained human evaluators will independently asses the participant's communication skills using the same BBAS tool and rubric. Lastly, both CMAI and human scores will be compared to determine the reliability of the CMAI platform.
2 secondary outcomes
Usability of CMAI Simulation Platform
Time frame: immediatley after the simulation
Satisfaction of CMAI Simulation
Time frame: immediately after the simulation
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Sep 2026.
Related trials for Communication Skills
Recruiting
Effectiveness of Communication-Focused Pain Neuroscience Education in Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain
Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effect of a Telerehabilitation-Supported, Family-Centered Early Intervention Program on Neurodevelopmental and Parental Outcomes in Infants at Mild-to-Moderate Risk
Development Delay, Motor Skills Disorders
Recruiting
Patient Perception of Physician's Compassion, Communication Skills, and Professionalism During Clinic Visits: a Randomized Controlled Trial (EHR Study #3)
Communication Skills, Professionalism
Not yet recruiting
The Effect of Creative Drama on the Therapeutic Communication Skills and Empathy Levels of Pediatric Nursing Students: A Randomized Controlled Study
Nurse's Role, Empathy
Recruiting
Empathic Communication Skills (ECS) Training
Lung Cancer
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Thomas Caruso, MD, PhD principal investigator
Stanford University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Communication Assessment through AI and Human in people with Communication Skills, run by Stanford University at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Reliability of AI Conversational Performance Assessment (time frame: Immediately after the simulation). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Sep 2026.