Benefits
- Benefit
-
Cut their time-in-note by 9.5% against the control group
Awaiting review
- Outcome identifiers
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Category
-
Reduced Task Time
Awaiting review
- Status
-
Reported benefit
Awaiting review
- Beneficiary groups
-
People. Organizations.
Awaiting review
- Beneficiaries
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Reach
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Distribution and access
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Duration
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Expected?
-
Yes
Awaiting review
- Costs and harms
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
AI system
- System
-
Nabla ambient AI scribe
Awaiting review
- Model
-
This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Reported configuration
-
Nabla version 1.5
Awaiting review
- Provider
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Role
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Configuration
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Inputs and outputs
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Autonomy
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Workflow
-
Nabla was integrated into Epic so that drafted text filled the native note. Physicians received one hour of virtual training before the trial. Physicians chose the visits on which to use the scribe.
Awaiting review
- Human oversight
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Relation to AI
-
Physicians were randomized to a scribe or to usual care, and the trial compared changes in time-in-note against the control group. The trial isolates the effect of offering the scribe. Physicians chose when to use it, and they used Nabla in 29.5% of visits.
Awaiting review
- AI contribution
-
Physicians were randomized to a scribe or to usual care, and the trial compared changes in time-in-note against the control group. The trial isolates the effect of offering the scribe. Physicians chose when to use it, and they used Nabla in 29.5% of visits.
Awaiting review
Measurement
- Studies
-
Randomized. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Studies
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Study design
-
Randomized. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Study design
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Measurement
-
Epic Signal time-in-note (log-transformed change from baseline); surveys for burnout, task load and accuracy. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measurement
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Setting and sample
-
238 outpatient physicians in 14 specialties at UCLA Health; 23,653 Nabla-arm visits. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Setting and sample
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Measures
-
Change in time-in-note versus control. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measures
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Comparison
-
Usual care (no scribe). [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Comparison
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Results
-
Nabla -9.5% (95% CI -17.2% to -1.8%); DAX -1.7% (95% CI -9.4% to +5.9%). [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Results
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Additional value from AI
-
9.5% less time-in-note for Nabla users. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Additional value from AI
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Limitations
-
Single system, two months, scribe used in under a third of visits, survey outcomes secondary, occasional inaccuracies. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Limitations
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
Money
- Kind of value
-
The kind of monetary value is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Amount
-
The monetary value is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Currency and prices
-
The currency and price basis are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Period and unit
-
The period and unit of the monetary estimate are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Realization
-
Whether the monetary value was realized is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Recipients and payers
-
The recipients and payers are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Gross or net
-
Whether the monetary figure includes costs is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Included costs
-
The costs included in the estimate are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Comparison
-
The financial comparison is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Method
-
The method used to calculate monetary value is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Return and payback
-
The return on investment or payback period is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
People and places
- Participants
-
Developer: Nabla. Operator: UCLA Health.
Awaiting review
- Jurisdictions
-
Benefit: UCLA Health outpatient clinics, Los Angeles, California,
United States. Developer: 
France. Operator: United States.Awaiting review
- Ownership and control
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Dependencies
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Cross-border connections
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Geopolitical implications
-
The geopolitical implications are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
Follow-up
- Conditions for replication
-
Physicians use the scribe on a meaningful share of visits. Physicians review drafts for occasional inaccuracies.
Awaiting review
- Replication attempts
-
2 follow-up entries. Benefit did not recur: 1. Benefit recurred: 1.
Awaiting review
- Later findings
-
The cited sources do not report what UCLA Health did after the trial.
Awaiting review
- Availability
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Institutional decision
-
A relevant institutional decision has not been established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Grounds
-
The grounds for an institutional decision are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Action and result
-
The result of an institutional decision is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Success criterion
-
The criterion for a successful institutional decision is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
Evidence
- Source numbers
-
AIBD-0607-source-0001–0002
Awaiting review
- Citations
-
Numbered references below.
Awaiting review
- Language
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Source relationships
-
Independent, Operator
Awaiting review
- Original evidence
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Access and versions
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Supported findings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Evidence links
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Evidence strength
-
Independently studied. Sources: one independent peer-reviewed study and the deployer's peer-reviewed study. The cited evidence includes no finding by a regulator or court. [1] [2]
- Missing evidence
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
Grades
- Assessed benefits
-
People. Organizations.
Awaiting review
- Depth
-
People: 1. Organizations: 1.
Awaiting review
- Reasons
-
People: Physicians who used Nabla spent 9.5% less time writing notes than physicians in usual care. Organizations: The health system recovered documentation time across 23,653 visits in the Nabla arm without other changes to clinic work.
Awaiting review
- Observed or intended
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Rubric
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Assessor and date
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Alternative assessments
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Fill
-
Independently studied
Awaiting review
Entry details
- Kind
-
The case describes an evaluation or a study. A pragmatic three-arm randomized clinical trial. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Kind
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Related entries
-
Both records concern AI transcription of patient consultations for clinical notes, and in this incident fabricated text in medical transcripts put the clinicians who rely on them at risk of recording false information.
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Related entries
Compared with the incidents in the AI Incident Database snapshot of 26 October 2026; a second reading confirmed that the incident concerns the same kind of system and stakeholder.
Sources: incidentdatabase.ai
- Field
-
Healthcare.
Awaiting review
- Purpose
-
Nabla is built to record clinical encounters and draft visit notes so that clinicians spend less time on documentation. The measured time saving is that purpose.
Awaiting review
- Dates
-
Observed: 3 January 2025. Updated: 29 October 2026.
Awaiting review
- Stage
-
The system was used in a pilot. The scribes were provisioned to randomized physicians for a two-month trial. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Stage
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Version
-
SHA-256: 0d483d74b2f4…
Awaiting review: supporting details for Version
SHA-256 of the public case, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.
References
- Other identifiers
-
AI Incident Database: 827.
Awaiting review
- Category mappings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Citable summary
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Revisions
-
2 revisions. Latest: 29 October 2026.
Awaiting review
Sources
-
Peer-reviewed study Independent author
Wolfe J, Welsh SM. Ambient Documentation Systems in Emergency Medicine: A Scoping Review of Clinical Precision, Patient Experience, Throughput, and Quality. Cureus 2026;18(4):e106643. doi:10.7759/cureus.106643. Review by emergency physicians at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University; the authors declare no financial support and no financial relationships.
Lukac et al. conducted a parallel three-group pragmatic RCT randomizing 238 physicians to Microsoft DAX Copilot, Nabla, or usual care; Nabla users achieved a 9.5% reduction in time-in-note versus control (p = 0.02), while DAX showed no significant difference in this outcome (p = 0.66)
-
Peer-reviewed study Deployer
Lukac PJ, Turner W, Vangala S, et al. Ambient AI Scribes in Clinical Practice: A Randomized Trial. NEJM AI 2025;2(12). doi:10.1056/aioa2501000. Author manuscript in PMC. Written by UCLA Health physicians and researchers, the deploying health system.
Nabla users experienced a 9.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], -17.2% to -1.8%; P=0.02) decrease in time-in-note versus the control group, whereas DAX users exhibited no significant change versus the control group (-1.7%; 95% CI, -9.4% to +5.9%; P=0.66).