ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
A typology of physician input approaches to using AI chatbots for clinical decision-making.
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.
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.
- When machines misread science: creating guardrails for human and AI interpretation of biomedical research.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Performance of ChatGPT in dental implant treatment planning: evaluation using the modified DISCERN, Global Quality Score, and accuracy-safety score.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
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
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.