ReviewJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023
A snapshot of artificial intelligence research 2019-2021: is it replacing or assisting physicians?
Review in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Physicians' required competencies in AI-assisted clinical settings: a systematic review.British medical bulletin · 2025Pooled it
- Chinese expert concern and consensus on applications of artificial intelligence in clinical cancer imaging.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Exploring the impact of AI technostress on physicians' job insecurity and performance from an empirical multi-hospital study.iScience · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence support improves diagnosis accuracy in anterior segment eye diseases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- GPT-based chatbot tools are still unreliable in the management of prosthetic joint infections.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2024Article
- Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Applications to Epilepsy: a Review for the Practicing Epileptologist.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2023Review
- Are ChatGPT's Free-Text Responses on Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip and Knee Reliable and Useful?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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) has the potential to be a disruptive technology in healthcare. Recently, there is increased speculation that AI may be used to replace healthcare providers in the future. To answer this question, we reviewed over 21 000 articles published in medical specialty journals between 2019 and 2021 to evaluate whether these AI models were intended to assist or replace healthcare providers. We also evaluated whether all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved AI models were used to assist or replace healthcare providers. We find that most AI models published in this time period were intended to assist rather than replace healthcare providers, and that most of the published AI models performed tasks that could not be done by healthcare providers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.