ArticleCureus2024
Artificial Intelligent Agent Architecture and Clinical Decision-Making in the Healthcare Sector.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- CPGPrompt: translating clinical guidelines into large language model-executable decision support.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Pricing models for diagnostic AI based on qualitative insights from healthcare decision makers.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in acute and critical care: current challenges and strategic solutions.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence agents in orthopaedics: Concepts, capabilities and the road ahead.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Review
- Beyond Chatbots: Moving Toward Multistep Modular AI Agents in Medical Education.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Case Reports and Artificial Intelligence Challenges on Squamous Cell Carcinoma Developed on Chronic Radiodermitis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
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
This paper examines the decision-making processes of physicians and intelligent agents within the healthcare sector, particularly focusing on their characteristics, architectures, and approaches. We provide a theoretical insight into the evolving role of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, emphasizing its potential to address various healthcare challenges. Defining features of intelligent agents are explored, including their perceptual abilities and behavioral properties, alongside their architectural frameworks, ranging from reflex-based to general learning agents, and contrasted with the rational decision-making structure employed by physicians. Through data collection, hypothesis generation, testing, and reflection, physicians exhibit a nuanced approach informed by adaptability and contextual understanding. A comparative analysis between intelligent agents and physicians reveals both similarities and disparities, particularly in adaptability and contextual comprehension. While intelligent agents offer promise in enhancing clinical decisions, challenges with types of dataset biases pose significant hurdles. Informing and educating physicians about AI concepts can build trust and transparency in intelligent programs. Such efforts aim to leverage the strengths of both human and AI toward improving healthcare delivery and outcomes.
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.