Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40489895›Full record

ArticleQJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians2025

Artificial intelligence for clinical reasoning: the reliability challenge and path to evidence-based practice.

He Xu, Yueqing Wang, Yangqin Xun, Ruitai Shao, Yang Jiao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

He XuDepartment of General Practice (General Internal Medicine), Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID 0009-0003-3744-7340
Yueqing WangSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yangqin XunSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Ruitai ShaoSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yang JiaoDepartment of General Practice (General Internal Medicine), Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3957-3829

Funding

Central Research Institute Fund of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences 2021-RC330-004Central Research Institute Fund of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences 2022-ZHCH330-01National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding 2022-PUMCH-A-017
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Decision-MakingClinical ReasoningEvidence-Based PracticeHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID40489895
PMCPMC12778421

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.