ArticleThe European journal of general practice2025
Generative artificial intelligence for general practice; new potential ahead, but are we ready?
Article in The European journal of general practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The future is now: Towards intelligent use of Generative AI in general practice.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- The role and utility of artificial intelligence and machine learning for diagnostic prediction in general practice.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- Exploring the Role of Large Language Models in Primary Care: Qualitative Study of Physicians in the United States and the Netherlands.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Qualitative study on physicians' acceptance of a clinical decision support system for anemia management in patients receiving hemodialysis.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- AI in primary care - a general practitioner's bucket list.The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
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
backgroundGenerative AI (Gen AI) is frequently cited as an innovation to address the current challenges in healthcare, also for primary care. Examples include automating tasks like voice-to-notes transcription or chatbots using large language models. Additionally, it may facilitate a learning healthcare system by generating personalised learning resources and real-time literature summaries. Yet - probably with the highest expectations - Gen AI may extend diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities in general practice by integrating complex, multimodal patient data for personalised care, enabling earlier disease detection, and providing real-time guidance for diagnostics, prognostics and treatments. METHOD & DISCUSSION: The authors of this opinion paper recently hosted a workshop at the WONCA Europe 2024 conference. From discussions at that workshop, three priorities emerge: practice support, education support, and clinical decision-making support. In this opinion paper, we argue that GPs and academic departments of primary care should lead in evaluating Gen AI across these three priorities. Primary care research must prioritise rigorous scientific evaluations, to ensure that developed tools actually work for GPs and their patients.
conclusionHereto, a coordinated effort, driven by the primary care academic community, is needed, starting with research agenda drafting. A broad, international follow-up is scheduled following this WONCA Europe 2024 workshop.
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.