ArticleBioethics2026
Empowering Patient Autonomy: The Role of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Scaffolding Informed Consent in Medical Practice.
Article in Bioethics, 2026. 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 VALUE of AI-Guided Communication: Enhancing Shared Decision-Making in Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Consultations Through a Metacognitive Framework.Obesity surgery · 2026Trial
- Accountability for large language models in health care.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models as a source of clinical information on bacteriophage therapy.Npj viruses · 2026Article
- Advertising and large language models: a new frontier influencing medical practice.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions of Large Language Models in Health Care Communication: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
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
Abstract
The principle of (respect for) patient autonomy has traditionally emphasized independence in medical decision-making, reflecting a broader commitment to epistemic individualism. However, recent philosophical work has challenged this view, suggesting that autonomous decisions are inherently dependent on epistemic and social supports. Wilkinson and Levy's "scaffolded model" of autonomy demonstrates how our everyday decisions rely on distributed cognition and various forms of epistemic scaffolding-from consulting others to using technological aids like maps or calculators. This paper explores how Large Language Models (LLMs) could operationalize scaffolded autonomy in medical informed consent. We argue that rather than undermining patient autonomy, appropriately designed LLM systems could enhance it by providing flexible, personalized support for information processing and value clarification. Drawing on examples from clinical practice, we examine how LLMs might serve as cognitive scaffolds in three key areas: enhancing information accessibility and comprehension, supporting value clarification, and facilitating culturally appropriate decision-making processes. However, implementing LLMs in consent procedures raises important challenges regarding epistemic responsibility, authenticity of choice, and the maintenance of appropriate human oversight. We analyze these challenges through the lens of scaffolded autonomy, arguing that successful implementation requires moving beyond simple questions of information provision to consider how technological systems can support genuinely autonomous decision-making. The paper concludes by proposing practical guidelines for LLM implementation while highlighting broader philosophical questions about the nature of autonomous choice in technologically mediated environments.
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.