Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41131097›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2025

Reimagining patient-reported outcomes in the age of generative AI.

Laurent Boyer, Sara Fernandes, Pascal Auquier, Bruno Falissard, Trishan Panch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Laurent BoyerCEReSS, Research Centre on Health Services and Quality of Life, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France. laurent.boyer@ap-hm.fr.
Sara FernandesCEReSS, Research Centre on Health Services and Quality of Life, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France.
Pascal AuquierCEReSS, Research Centre on Health Services and Quality of Life, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France.
Bruno Falissard *Universite Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Inserm, Developmental Psychiatry, Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health (CESP), Villejuif, France.
Trishan Panch *Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence, particularly large language models, offers an opportunity to rethink how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are assessed and implemented in health systems. Despite decades of psychometric and digital innovation, PROs remain conceptually limited and underused in both clinical practice and AI models. Rooted in top-down, predefined instruments and assumptions of unidimensionality, traditional PROs struggle to capture the fluctuating and multidimensional nature of lived health experiences. In contrast, generative AI supports bottom-up, narrative-based approaches that process language in a flexible and context-aware way. Our viewpoint supports two distinct directions: one that refines current psychometric models through generative artificial intelligence integration, and another that embraces a more disruptive shift toward language-native tools capable of synthesising patient narratives. Realising this potential will require addressing key challenges, including validation, clinical actionability, equity, and trust. Bridging these gaps could make PROs a true lever for more personalised, meaningful, and inclusive care.

Identifiers

PMID41131097
PMCPMC12549839

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.