Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39371536›Full record

ArticleFuture healthcare journal2024

Moving beyond the AI sales pitch - Empowering clinicians to ask the right questions about clinical AI.

Ibrahim Habli, Mark Sujan, Tom Lawton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Future healthcare journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Ibrahim HabliCentre for Assuring Autonomy, University of York, United Kingdom.
Mark SujanCentre for Assuring Autonomy, University of York, United Kingdom.
Tom LawtonImprovement Academy, Bradford Institute for Health Research, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We challenge the dominant technology-centric narrative around clinical AI. To realise the true potential of the technology, clinicians must be empowered to take a whole-system perspective and assess the suitability of AI-supported tasks for their specific complex clinical setting. Key factors include the AI's capacity to augment human capabilities, evidence of clinical safety beyond general performance metrics and equitable clinical decision-making by the human-AI team. Proactively addressing these issues could pave the way for an accountable clinical buy-in and a trustworthy deployment of the technology.

Identifiers

PMID39371536
PMCPMC11452827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 OpenQuestion graph.