Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42825240›Full record

ReviewBMJ digital health & AI2026

State of clinical AI in 2026.

John Emmett Worth, Anastasia Perez, David Jh Wu, Peter Brodeur, Emily Tat, Arjun Manrai, David Wu, Chase Walton, Liam G McCoy, Priyank Jain and 12 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ digital health & AI, 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

22 authors.

John Emmett Worth *The University of Arizona College of Medicine Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Anastasia Perez *Stanford Department of Medicine, Stanford, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0836-4056
David Jh Wu *Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Peter Brodeur *Department of Internal Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Emily TatDepartment of Medicine, New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Arjun ManraiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
David WuDepartment of Dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Chase WaltonBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Liam G McCoyDepartment of Internal Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Priyank JainDepartment of Internal Medicine, Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Rebecca HandlerStanford Department of Medicine, Stanford, Stanford, California, USA.
Jason HomHospital Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Laura ZwaanThe Institute of Medical Education Research Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Vishnu RaviStanford Department of Medicine, Stanford, Stanford, California, USA.
Brian HanStanford Department of Medicine, Stanford, Stanford, California, USA.
Kevin SchulmanStanford Department of Medicine, Stanford, Stanford, California, USA.
Kathleen LacarStanford Department of Medicine, Stanford, Stanford, California, USA.
Kameron BlackStanford Department of Medicine, Stanford, Stanford, California, USA.
Adrian HaimovichDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Adam RodmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ethan GohStanford Division of Computational Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1965-025X
Jonathan H ChenStanford Division of Computational Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced rapidly, with frontier large language models now matching or exceeding physician performance on simulated diagnostic reasoning and clinical decision-support tasks. Yet adoption has outpaced the evidence base: fewer than 5% of cleared U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) AI/machine learning (ML) devices have undergone peer-reviewed evaluation and prospective randomised trials remain scarce. This narrative review synthesises evidence from ARISE's State of Clinical AI Report 2026 across six domains: model performance and human benchmarking, evaluation methodology and benchmark validity, foundational methods including multimodal and multiagent systems, clinical workflow integration, patient-facing applications and applied domain-specific AI. We conducted a targeted literature search of PubMed, medRxiv and arXiv supplemented by expert nomination, including empirical studies of AI in clinical contexts. Across domains, frontier models demonstrate strong clinical reasoning capabilities but exhibit persistent failures in uncertainty calibration, metacognition and robustness to distributional shift. Standard benchmarks have saturated, prompting development of multidimensional evaluation frameworks that assess safety, real-world workflows and agentic capabilities. New trends in foundational methods include converting medical data into tokens and developing multiagent, multimodal systems. In clinical workflows, early prospective trials in clinical decision support and diagnostic imaging show promising results, though human-AI collaboration remains suboptimal and risks of automation bias and clinician deskilling are emerging. In tandem, patient-facing AI is progressing with more personalised health assistance; with this comes the risk of patient overtrust, raising the bar for guardrails. The most credible translational progress occurs on narrowly defined tasks with clear endpoints, while broader clinical autonomy awaits advances in evaluation and human-AI interaction.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceContinuity of Patient CareDecision Support Systems, ClinicalOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareSafety Management

Identifiers

PMID42825240
PMCPMC13629876

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.