ReviewSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Artificial intelligence in medicine and research - the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Review in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomedical Research Images Manipulated by Generative AI to Alter Scientific Outcomes: Diagnostic Study of Human and Automated Detection.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Advanced Chunking for Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Exploring Artificial Intelligence's Potential to Enhance Conventional Anticancer Drug Development.Drug development research · 2025Review
- Enhancing Clinical Decision Support with Adaptive Iterative Self-Query Retrieval for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in fracture detection on radiographs: a literature review.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- The crucial role and challenges of medical journal editors in the modern era.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- How Artificial Intelligence Can Enhance the Diagnosis of Cardiac Amyloidosis: A Review of Recent Advances and Challenges.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- Artificial-Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems in Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Current Clinical Implementations.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy of ChatGPT in Navigating the Spanish Medical Residency Entrance Examination (MIR): Promising Horizons for AI in Clinical Medicine.Clinics and practice · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence in medicine and research.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) broadly refers to machines that simulate intelligent human behavior, and research into this field is exponential and worldwide, with global players such as Microsoft battling with Google for supremacy and market share. This paper reviews the "good" aspects of AI in medicine for individuals who embrace the 4P model of medicine (Predictive, Preventive, Personalized, and Participatory) to medical assistants in diagnostics, surgery, and research. The "bad" aspects relate to the potential for errors, culpability, ethics, data loss and data breaches, and so on. The "ugly" aspects are deliberate personal malfeasances and outright scientific misconduct including the ease of plagiarism and fabrication, with particular reference to the novel ChatGPT as well as AI software that can also fabricate graphs and images. The issues pertaining to the potential dangers of creating rogue, super-intelligent AI systems that lead to a technological singularity and the ensuing perceived existential threat to mankind by leading AI researchers are also briefly discussed.
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.