ArticleMonash bioethics review2026
The new narrative medicine: ethical implications of artificial intelligence on healthcare narratives.
Article in Monash bioethics review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Advancements in artificial intelligence transforming medical education: a comprehensive overview.Medical education online · 2025Pooled it
- Digital Humanities in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: A Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Integrating narrative medicine into laboratory quality improvement: a sustainable model for reducing coagulation specimen rejections.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- A dialectical lens for AI and medical humanities: advancing responsible augmented humanism in Digital Public Health.Frontiers in public health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While on the surface the rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare signals a new technological innovation that may sideline the social sciences, arts, and literature comprising the medical humanities, we argue that one way to understand the applications of AI based on large language models (LLM) in healthcare is as a deeply narrative project. LLM-based AI endorses narrative and humanistic value insofar as it is trained on vast amounts of narrative data as inputs and generates outputs in narrative formats. We contend that the medical humanities, rather than being replaced by AI in healthcare, are all the more essential to understand the practical and ethical opportunities and constraints for responsible use and integration of such tools. By analyzing two case studies of generative AI in healthcare reported in literature, we show that narrative medicine and the medical humanities provide crucial theoretical frameworks and disciplinary skills to assess, integrate, and critique the roles and impacts of such technologies in healthcare. Rather than offsetting narrative practice via AI, responsible use of LLM-based AI in healthcare requires attention to the functions of narrative in medicine and the importance of the medical humanities.
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.