ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026
Artificial intelligence translation in healthcare: an urgent call for evidence-informed policy frameworks.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Managing Communication Challenges in Mental Health Care by Using Mobile Translation Apps: Protocol for a Simulation-Based Pilot Study.JMIR research protocols · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) translation tools in healthcare is accelerating rapidly, yet regulatory frameworks lag dangerously behind clinical practice. Recent data reveal that 57% of US physicians are already using or planning to adopt AI translation services within the next year. This creates a critical policy vacuum where clinicians deploy tools with variable performance across languages, risking patient safety and deepening health inequities. We examine the fractured regulatory landscape, document performance disparities between well-resourced and digitally under-represented languages, and argue for an urgent, evidence-informed policy framework centred on patient comprehension rather than linguistic accuracy.We delineate a risk-stratified validation approach comprising two distinct tracks: a 'Streamlined Pathway' for tool-language combinations with robust existing evidence (eg, Spanish) and a 'Standard Pathway' requiring independent, prospective validation for digitally under-represented languages (eg, Haitian Creole). To ensure accountability, we propose establishing oversight bodies within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to mandate pre-deployment validation and post-market monitoring. Without such action, AI translation risks creating a two-tier system where the 25.7 million Americans with non-English language preferences receive dramatically different care quality based solely on the language they speak.
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.