ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Improving Clinical Decision-Making in Treating Airway Diseases With an Expert System Built Upon the Free AI Tool Google NotebookLM.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We used the free artificial intelligence (AI) tool Google NotebookLM, powered by the large language model Gemini 2.0, to construct a medical decision-making aid for diagnosing and managing airway diseases and subsequently evaluated its functionality and performance in a clinical workflow. After feeding this tool with relevant published clinical guidelines for these diseases, we evaluated the feasibility of the system regarding its behavior, ability, and potential, and we created simulated cases and used the system to solve associated medical problems. The test and simulation questions were designed by a pulmonologist, and the appropriateness (focusing on accuracy and completeness) of AI responses was judged by 3 pulmonologists independently. The system was then deployed in an emergency department setting, where it was tested by medical staff (n=20) to assess how it affected the process of clinical consultation. Test opinions were collected through a questionnaire. Most (56/84, 67%) of the specialists' ratings regarding AI responses were above average. The interrater reliability was moderate for accuracy (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.612; P<.001) and good on completeness (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.773; P<.001). When deployed in an emergency department (ED) setting, this system could respond with reasonable answers, enhance the literacy of personnel about these diseases. The potential to save the time spent in consultation did not reach statistical significance (Kolmogorov-Smirnov [K-S] D=0.223, P=.24) across all participants, but it indicated a favorable outcome when we analyzed only physicians' responses. We concluded that this system is customizable, cost efficient, and accessible to clinicians and allied health care professionals without any computer coding experience in treating airway diseases. It provides convincing guideline-based recommendations, increases the staff's medical literacy, and potentially saves physicians' time spent on consultation. This system warrants further evaluation in other medical disciplines and health care 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.