ArticleQJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians2025
Artificial intelligence for clinical reasoning: the reliability challenge and path to evidence-based practice.
Article in QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Review of Patient Records: Privacy-Preserving Large Language Models for Identifying Incident Nonarteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy at Scale.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Clinical AI Beyond Development: A Scoping Review of Deployment-Related Robustness, Algorithmovigilance, and Lifecycle Oversight.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Profiles of artificial intelligence literacy and associations with evidence-based practice competence among nurses: a latent profile analysis.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Efficacy of AI-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy interventions for anxiety and depressive symptoms: a systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in acute and critical care: current challenges and strategic solutions.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Intelligence without intuition: a mixed-methods pilot study on reasoning models in musculoskeletal physiotherapy for low-back pain.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Performance of deepseek-R1 and ChatGPT-5.4 thinking in the medical laboratory professional title examination: accuracy, stability, and comparison with interns.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), into clinical reasoning heralds transformative potential for medical practice. However, their capacity to authentically replicate the complexity of human clinical decision-making remains uncertain-a challenge defined here as the reliability challenge. While studies demonstrate LLMs' ability to pass medical licensing exams and achieve diagnostic accuracy comparable to physicians, critical limitations persist. Crucially, LLMs mimic reasoning patterns rather than executing genuine logical reasoning, and their reliance on outdated or non-regional data undermines clinical relevance. To bridge this gap, we advocate for a synergistic paradigm where physicians leverage advanced clinical expertise while AI evolves toward transparency and interpretability. This requires AI systems to integrate real-time, context-specific evidence, align with local healthcare constraints, and adopt explainable architectures (e.g. multi-step reasoning frameworks or clinical knowledge graphs) to demystify decision pathways. Ultimately, reliable AI for clinical reasoning hinges on harmonizing technological innovation with human oversight, ensuring ethical adherence to beneficence and non-maleficence while advancing evidence-based, patient-centered care.
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.