ReviewJournal of biomedical informatics2026
A comprehensive survey of AI agents in healthcare.
Review in Journal of biomedical 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.
- Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Decision Support in Rural Spine Care: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis survey aims to systematically map the rapidly evolving landscape of AI agents in healthcare. It addresses the critical need to adapt general-purpose agentic frameworks characterized by autonomy, planning, and tool use to the high-stakes, safety-critical constraints of medical decision-making and patient care.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive review of over 200 recent studies, synthesizing literature from major academic databases. We developed a holistic taxonomy that traces the full lifecycle of healthcare agents, analyzing perception modalities, core technical architectures, and evaluation protocols specific to autonomous systems.
resultsThe review presents a quantitative landscape analysis showing exponential growth in the field. We structure the domain into three pillars: (1) Perception of multi-modal clinical data (e.g., EHR, imaging, genomics); (2) Agent Capabilities, including tool use, reasoning, memory, and multi-agent collaboration; and (3) an Application Ecosystem organized by stakeholder roles (clinicians, patients, researchers, and administrators). Additionally, we categorize evaluation frameworks, and discuss the deployment readiness of current systems across technical, evidentiary, and governance dimensions. Finally, we identify challenges for advancing healthcare agents from controlled evaluation toward real-world clinical integration. A continuously updated repository of related papers is available at https://github.com/AgenticHealthAI/Awesome-AI-Agents-for-Healthcare.
conclusionAI agents offer significant potential to enhance healthcare through autonomous reasoning and workflow integration. However, current research remains largely concentrated in benchmark and controlled evaluation settings, and the translation into clinical practice will require advances in reliability, privacy protection, governance, and operational integration.
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.