ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2026
An Evidence-Based Framework for Patient-Facing Artificial Intelligence Integration in the Emergency Department.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergency department is a high-need setting for patient-facing artificial intelligence (PF-AI) because it functions as both a health care safety net and, increasingly, a digital front door for unscheduled acute care. We define PF-AI as tools that interact directly with patients to collect information, deliver tailored communication, and support decision making under clinician governance. This article presents a constrained framework for where PF-AI may add value across the emergency care journey-including structured intake, patient education, multilingual communication, and postdischarge follow-up-and where strict boundaries are required given risks of undertriage, confabulated content, workflow burden, privacy harm, inequitable access, cost escalation, and medico-legal ambiguity. We map operational touchpoints from prearrival to follow-up, specify information-flow and accountability checkpoints, and propose a human oversight model with defined escalation roles. The framework emphasizes equity, interoperability, usability, privacy, safety verification, and auditability, recognizing that PF-AI should augment rather than replace clinician judgment or existing non-AI workflows.
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.