Articlenpj health systems2026
Authentication status and AI triage concordance among care seekers in a US health system.
Article in npj health systems, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Online AI triage tools (symptom checkers) are widely deployed at the digital front door of US health systems, but little is known about how users' pre-stated care intent aligns with the AI recommendation or how that alignment shapes downstream engagement. We conducted a prospective cohort analysis of 6772 randomly selected users completing AI self-triage on either the public website (unauthenticated) or patient portal (authenticated) of a large integrated US health system (September 2023 to May 2024). Users reported their planned site of care (pre-intent), and encounters were classified as validated (matching the AI triage recommendation) or re-directed (differing); re-directed encounters were sub-classified as escalated or de-escalated. Downstream digital engagement was captured as interaction with any call-to-action. Of 6772 users, 508 (7.5%) were unauthenticated and 6264 (92.5%) authenticated; 89% of unauthenticated self-care pre-intenders were escalated by the AI, and 42% of authenticated office-visit pre-intenders were re-directed. Call-to-action interaction was approximately twice as high when the AI recommendation matched pre-intent. Of 636 non-engagers responding to a follow-up survey (9.4% response rate), all reported plans to seek care off-platform. Authentication status and pre-intent-to-recommendation alignment are strong correlates of digital care-seeking engagement, and merit targeted user-experience design.
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.