ArticleNature medicine2026
On-premise medical AI agents for reliable clinical decision-making.
Article in Nature medicine, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Autonomous clinical artificial intelligence (AI) agents powered by large language models (LLMs), meaning systems that can complete a diagnostic workflow without continuous human input, are increasingly capable of supporting complex reasoning and decision-making. Clinical translation, however, remains limited by two unmet requirements: institutionally governed deployment and reliable decision-time uncertainty estimation. Here we developed and evaluated a fully on-premise clinical agent that couples local operational control with a multi-perspective reliability framework to support selective autonomy. Across two Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV)-derived benchmarks, the agent achieved 90.04% accuracy on a seven-disease task and 83.8% accuracy on a four-disease task, approaching a cloud baseline on the primary benchmark. To assess decision-time reliability, we quantified internal-likelihood, language-based and behavioral-stability measures for diagnosis and reasoning. Diagnostic behavioral consistency provided the strongest discrimination of correctness (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.860) and remained informative under stress testing (AUC = 0.875). At a consistency threshold of 0.90, 49.4% of cases were retained at 98.9% diagnostic accuracy. These findings support a practical framework for institutionally governed clinical agents in which decision-time reliability signals identify a lower-risk subset for autonomous handling and defer the remainder for review.
Identifiers
42744896What 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.