Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40968304›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2025

Entropy in Clinical Decision-Making: A Narrative Review Through the Lens of Decision Theory.

Cory Rohlfsen, Kevin Shannon, Andrew S Parsons

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Cory RohlfsenDepartment of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, USA. cory.rohlfsen@unmc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4118-5174
Kevin ShannonUniversity of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0740-4289
Andrew S ParsonsDepartment of Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5631-9465

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Navigating uncertainty is fundamental to sound clinical decision-making. With the advent of artificial intelligence, mathematical approximations of disease states-expressed as entropy-offer a novel approach to quantify and communicate uncertainty. Although entropy is well established in fields like physics and computer science, its technical complexity has delayed its routine adoption in clinical reasoning. In this narrative review, we adhere to Shannon's definition of entropy from information processing theory and examine how it has been used in clinical decision-making over the last 15 years. Grounding our analysis in decision theory-which frames decisions in terms of states, acts, consequences, and preferences-we evaluated 20 studies that employed entropy. Our findings reveal that entropy is predominantly used to quantify uncertainty rather than directly guiding clinical actions. High-stakes fields such as oncology and radiology have led the way, using entropy to improve diagnostic accuracy and support risk assessment, while applications in neurology and hematology remain largely exploratory. Notably, no study has yet translated entropy into an operational, evidence-based decision-support framework. These results point to entropy's value as a quantitative tool in clinical reasoning, while also highlighting the need for prospective validation and the development of integrated clinical tools.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDecision TheoryEntropyArtificial IntelligenceHumansUncertaintyartificial intelligenceclinical reasoningdecision theoryentropyuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID40968304
PMCPMC12686290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.