Turn one paper into a short teaching outline
Residents ask for the evidence on rounds and I don't have time to turn a paper into a teaching discussion.
Editorial workflow No patient data Individual access available
Source check: 2026-11-11 · Physician review: not yet recorded
Turn one paper into a five-minute teaching discussion
Get the question, actual result, caveat and discussion prompts in a format you can teach from.
Free. Use a public abstract or material you have permission to upload.
You provide
Practice extract, paraphrased from the published abstract, not a quotation: Ambient AI Scribes in Clinical Practice: A Randomized Trial. DOI 10.1056/aioa2501000. 238 outpatient physicians; eight weeks. Nabla, DAX Copilot and usual care. Nabla time-in-note was 9.5% lower relative to control (95% CI 1.8% to 17.2% reduction). DAX did not show a statistically significant reduction. Full methods and subgroup results are not included in this extract.
A useful result
Teaching takeaway In this eight-week randomized trial, one tested scribe reduced time-in-note, while the other did not show a statistically significant reduction. The result should not be generalized to every scribe or to total work hours. Discussion • How different is time-in-note from the outcome our department cares about? • What errors and editing time would we measure before choosing a scribe? Appraisal limit This supplied extract is insufficient to assess all methods, missing data or subgroup effects. Read the full paper before presenting a full critical appraisal.
Illustrative output written for this guide, not a live model run. Source for this example
Prepare a five-minute journal-club outline using ONLY the supplied paper or abstract. Give: clinical question; design; population; intervention/comparator; primary endpoint; effect size with uncertainty if reported; three limitations; what the paper does and does not justify changing. Distinguish prespecified outcomes from exploratory findings. Do not invent numbers, methods or references. If I supply only an abstract, label the limits of that appraisal. Finish with two discussion questions and a 30-second spoken takeaway. SOURCE MATERIAL: Practice extract, paraphrased from the published abstract, not a quotation: Ambient AI Scribes in Clinical Practice: A Randomized Trial. DOI 10.1056/aioa2501000. 238 outpatient physicians; eight weeks. Nabla, DAX Copilot and usual care. Nabla time-in-note was 9.5% lower relative to control (95% CI 1.8% to 17.2% reduction). DAX did not show a statistically significant reduction. Full methods and subgroup results are not included in this extract.
Replace the bracketed material in your AI tool. The site does not collect clinical text.
Prepare a five-minute journal-club outline using ONLY the supplied paper or abstract. Give: clinical question; design; population; intervention/comparator; primary endpoint; effect size with uncertainty if reported; three limitations; what the paper does and does not justify changing. Distinguish prespecified outcomes from exploratory findings. Do not invent numbers, methods or references. If I supply only an abstract, label the limits of that appraisal. Finish with two discussion questions and a 30-second spoken takeaway. SOURCE MATERIAL: [paste your material here]
Before you use it
- Verify every number and denominator against the paper.
- Distinguish the measured endpoint from your desired clinical outcome.
- Read methods and limitations before teaching beyond the abstract.
The prompts are editorial templates, not clinically validated tools. Keep responsibility for clinical decisions and final communication.
The workflow
- Pick one paper. If you find it through Doximity Ask’s source links, open the article itself rather than relying on the generated summary.
- Use the public abstract or material you have permission to upload; no patient information is needed.
- Paste it into the reusable prompt in Claude (Free plan).
- Check every number, denominator and endpoint in the outline against the paper.
- If you supplied only an abstract, say so when you teach, and read the methods and limitations before going further.
- Use the two discussion questions and the 30-second takeaway on rounds.
Tools and cost
USD unless stated otherwise. Billing periods and eligibility matter. A tool listed here was not necessarily tested in the cited study.
Individual self-service
Consumer plan has no BAA; eligible commercial products are separate.
Verified Doximity account
Doximity describes suite coverage under its BAA.
What the evidence supports
Doximity Ask supports clinical questions with source links. Using those links to prepare teaching rounds is an editorial workflow, not a demonstrated educational benefit.
Primary product or guidance source · Read the source ↗
Where it goes wrong
Confirm the article, population and actual findings before teaching from a generated summary. The source above describes Doximity Ask’s source links; it does not evaluate Claude or validate this editorial prompt. The trial in the worked example is teaching material, not evidence for this workflow.