ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Bridging generative AI and healthcare practice: insights from the GenAI Health Hackathon at Hospital Clínic de Barcelona.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recent advances in thoracic anesthesia: lung protection, airway management, and enhanced recovery-a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the implementation of a multidisciplinary, ethically grounded hackathon as a model to develop and evaluate generative AI (GenAI) solutions for real-world clinical challenges within a hospital setting.
methodsThe GenAI Health Hackathon (GAHH) organised at Hospital Clínic de Barcelona included 13 challenges were selected via an internal call based on clinical impact, feasibility and data availability. Participants accessed anonymised real-world data through a secure cloud environment. Teams employed large language models and retrieval-augmented generation to build prototypes addressing tasks such as clinical text structuring, decision support and workflow automation. Human-in-the-loop validation, explainability and regulatory safeguards were emphasised.
resultsThe hackathon yielded multiple AI prototypes tested on real data. Results varied: entity recognition reached 90.5% accuracy, summarisation >90% clinician concordance and nutritional models achieved F1 scores of 0.75-0.93. Lower scores (F1<0.52, Jaccard Index <0.4) were seen in complex reasoning or multilingual tasks. Bias was explored in 10 projects, with mitigations such as stratified sampling, prompt tuning, disclaimers and expert oversight. A transferable framework was proposed to replicate responsible GenAI hackathons in clinical contexts. DISCUSSION: Interdisciplinary collaboration and real-world testing proved essential for aligning GenAI with clinical needs. The hackathon revealed challenges in bias, evaluation and integration but offered a transferable framework for responsible innovation under General Data Protection Regulation and the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act.
conclusionsThe GAHH demonstrated that GenAI can be safely and effectively applied in healthcare with rigorous governance and interdisciplinary collaboration, offering a scalable model for responsible AI innovation.
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.