ArticleJMIR medical education2025
Quo Vadis, AI-Empowered Doctor?
Article in JMIR medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nurses' Knowledge of Insensible Water Loss and the Evolution of a Digital Decision-Support Tool for Personalized Fluid Balance Assessment: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Clinician and simulated patient perspectives on ambient AI scribes in psychiatric consultations: a qualitative study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlabelled: In the first decade of this century, physicians maintained considerable professional autonomy, enabling discretionary evaluation and implementation of new technologies according to individual practice requirements. The past decade, however, has witnessed significant restructuring of medical practice patterns in the United States, with most physicians transitioning to employed status. Concurrently, technological advances and other incentives drove the implementation of electronic systems into the clinic, which these physicians were compelled to integrate. Health care practitioners have now been introduced to applications based on large language models, largely driven by artificial intelligence (AI) developers as well as established electronic health record vendors eager to incorporate these innovations. Although generative AI assistance promises enhanced clinical efficiency and diagnostic precision, its rapid advancement may potentially redefine clinical provider roles and transform workflows, as it has already altered expectations of physician productivity, as well as introduced unprecedented liability considerations. Recognition of the input of physicians and other clinical stakeholders in this nascent stage of AI integration is essential. This requires a more comprehensive understanding of AI as a sophisticated clinical tool. Accordingly, we advocate for its systematic incorporation into standard medical curricula.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.