ReviewMedicine international
Artificial intelligence in modern clinical practice (Review).
Review in Medicine international. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Resource-Efficient Hybrid Deep Learning Framework with External Validation for Intracranial Hemorrhage Detection in CT Scans.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Integrating AI-Driven Diagnostics in Arrhythmia Care to Enhance Patient Outcomes: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Performance Comparison of a Neuro-Symbolic Large Language Model System Versus Human Experts in Acute Cholecystitis Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Transforming thyroid disease education: AI and virtual technologies in residency training.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- From algorithms to clinical execution: A cross-validated knowledge atlas of AI-enabled precision care (2015-2025).Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since its inception as rule-based programs, artificial intelligence (AI) has developed into machine learning and deep learning systems that utilize the enormous volumes of clinical data currently accessible. The aim of the present review was to discuss the role of AI in modern clinical practice and to highlight the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead by combining the results of recent research. AI tools provide physicians with decision support and prediction models, directs robotic procedures and surgical planning, supports radiologists, pathologists, dermatologists and ophthalmologists with image analysis, and aids in the delivery of more individualized care in cardiology and precision medicine. These developments are boosting precision, optimizing daily tasks and providing patients with more individualized treatment. In practice, this could include imaging systems that prioritize patients who are most at risk or prediction technologies that help physicians allocate resources and reduce unnecessary workload. However, there are still critical obstacles to overcome. The biases of the training data may be reflected in the algorithms, which could exacerbate already-existing disparities. Since many models operate as 'black boxes', it can be challenging to understand their logic, which raises questions about accountability, ethics and trust. Clinical standards and regulations are still lagging behind technology, and incorporating AI into busy healthcare systems can be difficult and costly. Achieving its promise will require careful implementation, rigorous validation and sustained collaboration among clinicians, data scientists, engineers, ethicists and policymakers for safe adoption in clinical practice.
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.