SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025
AI for IMPACTS Framework for Evaluating the Long-Term Real-World Impacts of AI-Powered Clinician Tools: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Economic, ethical, and regulatory dimensions of artificial intelligence in healthcare: an integrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Practice: Validation, Fairness, and Regulatory Challenges: A Systematic Review.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingPooled it
- A Survey on Perspectives Toward Artificial Intelligence Among Italian Interventional Cardiologists.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Drivers of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Adoption in Supporting Chronic Disease Management in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Review
- The Technologies, Applicability, and Trade-Offs of AI in Palliative Care for Older Adults: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The AI-Driven Healthcare Value Framework-Rethinking Traditional Care Models in the Age of Automation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- A lifecycle governance and learning health system framework for trustworthy, generalizable, and sustainable human-ai partnership in clinical practice: Lessons from the asthma-guidance and prediction system (A-GPS).Journal of the National Medical Association · 2026Review
- The HALO Model: A Learning Health System Framework for Artificial Intelligence.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Clinician Burnout in the United States: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Infectious Disease Care: Selected Applications in Tuberculosis, Sepsis, and Antimicrobial Stewardship.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Racial Disparities and the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Maternal Mortality: A Literature Review.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Participatory Digital Twins for Chronic Care: From Predictive Models to Shared Sensemaking.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and person-centred practice: a critical reflection.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- Governance for safe and responsible AI in healthcare organisations: a scoping review of frameworks.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Qualitative Framework for Evaluating Clinical Data Science Systems: Beyond Technical Validation.Healthcare informatics research · 2026Article
- Clinical Artificial Intelligence Agents in Nephrology: From Prediction to Action Through Workflow-Native Intelligence-A Roadmap for Workflow-Integrated Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize health care by enhancing both clinical outcomes and operational efficiency. However, its clinical adoption has been slower than anticipated, largely due to the absence of comprehensive evaluation frameworks. Existing frameworks remain insufficient and tend to emphasize technical metrics such as accuracy and validation, while overlooking critical real-world factors such as clinical impact, integration, and economic sustainability. This narrow focus prevents AI tools from being effectively implemented, limiting their broader impact and long-term viability in clinical practice.
objectiveThis study aimed to create a framework for assessing AI in health care, extending beyond technical metrics to incorporate social and organizational dimensions. The framework was developed by systematically reviewing, analyzing, and synthesizing the evaluation criteria necessary for successful implementation, focusing on the long-term real-world impact of AI in clinical practice.
methodsA search was performed in July 2024 across the PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore databases to identify relevant studies published in English between January 2019 and mid-July 2024, yielding 3528 results, among which 44 studies met the inclusion criteria. The systematic review followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Data were analyzed using NVivo through thematic analysis and narrative synthesis to identify key emergent themes in the studies.
resultsBy synthesizing the included studies, we developed a framework that goes beyond the traditional focus on technical metrics or study-level methodologies. It integrates clinical context and real-world implementation factors, offering a more comprehensive approach to evaluating AI tools. With our focus on assessing the long-term real-world impact of AI technologies in health care, we named the framework AI for IMPACTS. The criteria are organized into seven key clusters, each corresponding to a letter in the acronym: (1) I-integration, interoperability, and workflow; (2) M-monitoring, governance, and accountability; (3) P-performance and quality metrics; (4) A-acceptability, trust, and training; (5) C-cost and economic evaluation; (6) T-technological safety and transparency; and (7) S-scalability and impact. These are further broken down into 28 specific subcriteria.
conclusionsThe AI for IMPACTS framework offers a holistic approach to evaluate the long-term real-world impact of AI tools in the heterogeneous and challenging health care context and lays the groundwork for further validation through expert consensus and testing of the framework in real-world health care settings. It is important to emphasize that multidisciplinary expertise is essential for assessment, yet many assessors lack the necessary training. In addition, traditional evaluation methods struggle to keep pace with AI's rapid development. To ensure successful AI integration, flexible, fast-tracked assessment processes and proper assessor training are needed to maintain rigorous standards while adapting to AI's dynamic evolution.
trial registrationreviewregistry1859; https://tinyurl.com/ysn2d7sh.
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.