ReviewPalliative care and social practice2026
A primer on artificial intelligence for palliative care educators.
Review in Palliative care and social practice, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly being adopted in education in the health care professions, including in palliative care. Yet existing AI primers for health professions education (HPE) are not specific to palliative care (PC) and overlook the relational, prognostic, and cultural sensitivities central to the field. This narrative primer addresses that gap. Informed by a review of the literature, it equips PC educators with practical guidance for responsibly harnessing AI. We first introduce foundational AI concepts relevant to educators and clinicians, including machine learning (ML), large language models (LLMs), generative AI (GenAI) and agentic AI. We then trace a progression from general HPE use, such as study support, assessment, and AI-enhanced simulation, to PC-specific applications in curriculum design, serious-illness communication training, and interprofessional teamwork. Throughout, we situate the risks where they arise, with attention to concerns most consequential for PC: bias, communication integrity and hallucination, data privacy, and over-reliance on AI, in a field where relational, humanistic practice and nuanced communication are central. Guiding principles of ethics, equity, and patient-centeredness anchor the discussion. We close with concrete implications for educators and curriculum development: building AI literacy, establishing governance and appropriate-use policies, and verifying AI-generated outputs against trusted sources. The aim is an educator-AI partnership that safeguards what is essential in PC: compassionate, dignified, patient-centered decision-making and care.
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.