Trial reportNature medicine2026
Generative AI-enabled clinical decision support system in primary care: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial.
Trial report in Nature medicine, 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.
- Generative AI-augmented transcriptomic and microbiome analysis across inflammatory and fibrotic disease states in Crohn's disease.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rigorous evidence on the performance of large language models (LLMs) in real-world, low-resource clinical settings remains limited. Here we conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial in 16 primary care facilities in Kenya. Clinical officers were randomized to use the electronic medical record with or without LLM assistance. The primary outcome was an expert-adjudicated composite of treatment failure events experienced within 14 days of enrollment. Between 22 April and 16 July 2025, 9,691 patients were enrolled, overseen by 103 clinical officers (52 in the LLM-assisted arm and 51 in the control arm). Treatment failure occurred in 102/4,693 patients (2.2%) in the intervention arm and 94/4,654 (2.0%) in the control arm (adjusted odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.08, P = 0.13). The primary outcome did not differ significantly between groups. No serious adverse events were judged related to the intervention, and independent review of the adverse events did not identify a safety signal. In this trial, LLM assistance was safe but did not reduce treatment failure within 14 days and any benefit, if present, is probably modest.Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry: 202502499779176.
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.