Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41350807›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025

A typology of physician input approaches to using AI chatbots for clinical decision-making.

Rachel Siden, Hannah Kerman, Robert J Gallo, Joséphine A Cool, Jason Hom, Ethan Goh, Neera Ahuja, Paul Heidenreich, Lisa Shieh, Daniel Yang and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Rachel SidenDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA. rsiden@stanford.edu.
Hannah KermanDivision of Hospital Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Robert J GalloCenter for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Joséphine A CoolDivision of Hospital Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Jason HomDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Ethan GohDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Neera AhujaDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Paul HeidenreichDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Lisa ShiehDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Daniel YangKaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA, USA.
Jonathan H Chen *Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Adam Rodman *Division of Hospital Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Laura M HoldsworthDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.

Funding

Stanford Center for Clinical and Translational Research and EducationUM1TR004921 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI MANISHA DESAI, DEAN W FELSHER · 2024 to 2026
$30.1M
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation 12409NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004921
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies have found that physicians with access to a large language model (LLM) chatbot during clinical reasoning tests may score no better to worse compared to the same chatbot performing alone with an input that included the entire clinical case. This study explores how physicians approach using LLM chatbots during clinical reasoning tasks and whether the amount of clinical case content included in the input affects performance. We conducted semi-structured interviews with U.S. physicians on experiences using an LLM chatbot and developed a typology based on input patterns. We then analyzed physician chat logs from two randomized controlled trials, coding each clinical case to an input approach type. Lastly, we used a linear mixed-effects model to compare the case scores of different input approach types. We identified four input approach types based on patterns of content amount: copy-paster (entire case), selective copy-paster (pieces of a case), summarizer (user-generated case summary), and searcher (short queries). Copy-pasting and searching were utilized most. No single type was associated with scoring higher on clinical cases. Other factors such as different prompting strategies, cognitive engagement, and interpretation of the outputs may have more impact and should be explored in future studies.

Identifiers

PMID41350807
PMCPMC12780094

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.