Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42560990›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

The use of artificial intelligence models for interpretation and triage of clinical referral letters to acute and specialist care pathways: Protocol for a systematic review.

James Foley, Enda Hession, Etimbuk Umana, Fiona Boland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

James FoleyData Science Centre, School of Population Health, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI), University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9635-4513
Enda HessionDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin, Dublin, Ireland.
Etimbuk UmanaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Fiona BolandData Science Centre, School of Population Health, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI), University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3228-0046

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical referral letters direct patients into acute, urgent, and specialist care pathways, but their triage is typically manual, heterogeneous, and resource intensive, contributing to waiting-list pressure and potential patient harm. Artificial intelligence (AI) methods, including natural language processing, machine learning, and large language models, offer potential to automate or augment referral triage, yet the performance, safety, and implementation characteristics of AI applied to referral documentation have not been systematically synthesised. A February 2026 PROSPERO search identified no completed or ongoing systematic reviews addressing this question.

objectivesTo evaluate the prioritisation performance of AI models used to triage clinical referral documentation for acute and specialist care pathways, and to map how this emerging field defines and evaluates AI-assisted referral triage, including model types, reference standards, validation practices, safety outcomes, and implementation-related outcomes.

methodsThis protocol is reported in accordance with PRISMA-P. Systematic searches will be undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, covering January 2016 to the 5 May 2026, with no language restrictions. Eligible studies will include diagnostic accuracy, model development and validation, and comparative studies that apply an AI model to referral documentation and report at least one triage-performance outcome. Two reviewers will independently screen, extract data, and assess risk of bias using PROBAST-AI as appropriate. A structured narrative synthesis and evidence map using the SWiM reporting guideline will be the primary synthesis output, stratified by AI model class and clinical pathway. Meta-analysis will be treated as conditional and exploratory, and will be undertaken only where studies report comparable outcomes using a similar model class, clinical setting, reference standard, outcome definition, and threshold structure. EXPECTED OUTCOMES AND SIGNIFICANCE: This review will produce the first systematic synthesis and evidence map of AI-assisted referral triage across acute and specialist care pathways, characterising how the field defines and evaluates this task as well as what is currently known about prioritisation performance. Findings will inform clinicians, service planners, and policymakers considering AI adoption in referral workflows, and will identify methodological priorities for future research. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD420251244654.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCritical PathwaysReferral and ConsultationTriageHumansSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID42560990
PMCPMC13446580

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.