_Syntactic opacity in AI medical notes removes patients from grammar, obscures responsibility, and calls for urgent linguistic audits.
_
**The hidden shift in clinical language
**Electronic medical records are increasingly produced not by clinicians but by automated systems such as Epic Scribe or large language models like GPT-5. At first glance, the change appears harmless: sentences are shorter, records are faster to produce, and workflows appear smoother. Hospitals highlight efficiency gains, administrators emphasize cost savings, and clinicians welcome relief from administrative burdens.
Closer examination of the text, however, reveals a structural transformation. Corpus analysis shows that these systems consistently erase the patient as grammatical subject. Where a clinician might write, “The patient reports chest pain,” the automated output reduces this to “Chest pain reported.” What seems like a minor shift in expression is in fact the removal of agency from the sentence. The narrative of care becomes a catalog of descriptors, detached from the subject who experiences them.
This matters because grammar is not neutral. The difference between “The patient reports” and “Reported” is not cosmetic. In the first, agency is visible: a patient speaks, and a clinician records. In the second, agency is absent. The note no longer indicates who experienced the symptom, who conveyed it, or who documented it. What remains is a fragment that appears efficient but strips responsibility from the record.
Scaled across thousands of notes, this practice alters institutional memory. Archives fill with impersonal statements rather than patient-centered narratives. Clinicians begin to treat fragments as adequate representations of encounters. Patients become progressively invisible in the documents meant to preserve their voice and condition.
The hidden shift in clinical language is therefore not a matter of stylistic preference. It is a change in the grammar of care. Automated systems organize documentation around impersonal efficiency, creating texts that are grammatically streamlined but ethically weakened. A record that appears concise and neutral conceals a fundamental problem: the patient has vanished from the sentence, and with that disappearance, responsibility becomes harder to locate.
The mechanics of erasure
The erasure is systematic. Three constructions dominate AI-generated notes:
- Impersonal passives, such as “Bilateral opacities noted.”
- Nominalizations, such as “Evidence of bleeding present.”
- Fragment clauses, such as “No acute distress.”
Together they produce what I call syntactic opacity—the density of structures that suppress subject presence.
Introducing the Syntactic Opacity Index (SOI)
To measure opacity, I developed the Syntactic Opacity Index (SOI). The formula weights each construction: passives = 1, nominalizations = 2, fragments = 3. The score reflects how strongly a note erases subjects. In a corpus of 200 notes, human-authored records averaged SOI = 0.52, while AI-generated records averaged SOI = 1.27. Some emergency notes reached 1.82, meaning nearly all clauses eliminated the patient as subject.
Why this matters
Clinical notes are not only technical records. They are legal evidence, ethical artifacts, and the foundation of institutional memory. When the patient vanishes from grammar, three consequences follow:
– Patient-centered care weakens. If the patient is not in the sentence, their presence fades from the institutional narrative.
– Accountability collapses. In malpractice or audit scenarios, opacity makes it impossible to trace who observed what.
– Regulatory compliance falters. High-risk AI systems must meet traceability standards, yet opaque language erodes traceability at the grammatical level.
Examples in context
Consider two variants of the same clinical event:
– Human-authored: “The patient denies fever and reports cough.”
– AI-generated: “No fever. Cough reported.”
The first anchors the encounter in a subject. The second erases both clinician and patient, replacing responsibility with fragments. Multiply this across thousands of encounters and the grammar of care is transformed into an inventory of detached conditions.
**Institutional Responses Required
**Hospitals and regulators cannot treat grammar as decoration. Grammar is infrastructure. The way sentences are built in medical notes shapes who is visible, who is accountable, and how responsibility is assigned. If the patient disappears from grammar, the patient disappears from the record.
To prevent this, three safeguards are urgently needed, and they can be explained in plain terms.
**1. Audit opacity
**Hospitals already audit billing, infection control, and patient outcomes. They must also audit the language of their documentation systems. Tools such as the Syntactic Opacity Index (SOI) can measure how often medical notes are written without subjects. If the index is consistently high, that means patients are vanishing from the text. By running regular audits, hospitals can track whether their systems are producing records that protect accountability or undermine it.
**2. Train clinicians
**Doctors and nurses cannot simply accept AI-generated text as final. Training should emphasize the need to reintroduce the patient into the sentence. For example, if the system outputs “Chest pain reported,” the clinician should edit it to read, “The patient reports chest pain.” This small adjustment restores agency to the note, ensuring that the record clearly identifies who experienced the symptom and who documented it. Such training reframes clinicians not as passive editors of machine output but as active guardians of linguistic responsibility.
**3. Mandate transparency
**Hospitals and regulators must set clear rules for vendors. Procurement contracts should not only demand accuracy and data security but also require syntactic transparency. This means that automated systems must be designed to produce notes where the subject is visible. Just as contracts specify uptime guarantees or compliance with privacy laws, they should specify that records cannot be composed entirely of fragments and impersonal clauses. Grammar, in this sense, becomes a contractual obligation, not an afterthought.
**Why these safeguards matter
**Without these measures, medical records risk becoming grammatically efficient but ethically hollow. Patients vanish from documentation, clinicians lose clear lines of accountability, and institutions create archives that cannot reliably reconstruct responsibility. The problem is not only about language; it is about trust. If a hospital’s records cannot show clearly who said what and who did what, both care and accountability are compromised.
By treating grammar as infrastructure, institutions can ensure that efficiency does not eclipse responsibility. Records must remain documents of care, not just databases of detached descriptors. Protecting the patient in grammar is the first step toward protecting the patient in practice.
Conclusion
AI-generated documentation is not neutral. Its grammar erases subjects, shifts responsibility, and alters the epistemic basis of care. The disappearance of the patient from syntax is not a rhetorical exaggeration but an empirically verifiable phenomenon. Corpus analysis demonstrates that AI systems replace narratives anchored in patient agency with impersonal descriptors that fragment experience into isolated signs. The clinical record, which once served as a bridge between the patient’s voice and institutional memory, risks becoming a ledger of detached conditions.
The efficiency promised by automation is real. Clinicians can complete documentation faster, administrative overhead is reduced, and workflows become more standardized. Yet these gains come at a cost that is rarely acknowledged. The structural opacity of AI language produces a documentation environment where responsibility is obscured, accountability is diluted, and the ethical commitment to patient-centered care is silently undermined. The grammar of automation, optimized for brevity and portability, systematically suppresses the very subject it is meant to serve.
The risks are not abstract. In malpractice investigations, opaque notes complicate the reconstruction of clinical events. In regulatory oversight, opacity conflicts with traceability requirements, making it difficult to establish who authorized or verified information. In the culture of care, depersonalized records gradually normalize the absence of the patient from the clinical narrative, eroding trust and reshaping professional habits. If such patterns persist unchecked, institutional archives will evolve into repositories of grammatically streamlined descriptors, efficient for data storage and algorithmic mining, but ethically empty.
The implications extend beyond medicine. Clinical documentation is one of the most sensitive test cases for artificial intelligence because it directly mediates between language and life. If AI can erase the subject in this context, it can also do so in other institutional settings such as legal records, educational assessments, or government archives. The lesson is clear: grammar is not merely form, it is infrastructure. The structure of the sentence determines the structure of responsibility.
Unless hospitals, regulators, and developers act now, clinical records risk transforming into archives without patients. Preventing this outcome requires explicit safeguards such as linguistic audits, clinician oversight protocols, procurement standards that demand syntactic transparency, and regulatory frameworks that treat grammar as part of accountability. The task is not to reject AI but to ensure that its integration does not reproduce efficiency at the expense of responsibility. To protect the ethics of care, language must continue to recognize patients as subjects and must not allow them to vanish into opacity.
Call to Action
The full academic article, Clinical Syntax: Diagnoses Without Subjects in AI-Powered Medical Notes, including methodology and Appendix A with technical specifications of the SOI, is available on Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17184301
. For related publications, see my SSRN Author Page
.
Author Metadata
Agustin V. Startari
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4714-6539
Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17184301
ResearcherID: K-5792-2016
Mini Biography
Agustin V. Startari is a linguistic theorist and researcher in historical studies. His work analyzes how syntactic structures in AI reshape institutional authority, accountability, and legitimacy.
Ethos
I do not use artificial intelligence to write what I do not know. I use it to challenge what I do. I write to reclaim the voice in an age of automated neutrality. My work is not outsourced. It is authored. — Agustin V. Startari.
Top comments (0)