ArticleJAMIA open2026
Preliminary insights into artificial intelligence guided dosing in hypertension and diabetes: challenges and lessons learnt in a pilot feasibility study.
Article in JAMIA open, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: CURATE.AI is an artificial intelligence platform enabling personalised drug dosing. Aims:1) Determine the feasibility of using CURATE.AI in the outpatient setting.2) Compare the consistency of CURATE.AI recommendations derived from different data sources.3) Assess the alignment of physician and CURATE.AI dosing recommendations. Materials and Methods: We conducted a single-arm feasibility study involving type II diabetics and hypertensives recruited from a hospital's outpatient clinics. Outcomes included recruitment and study completion rates, adherence to study protocols, patient satisfaction, consistency of CURATE.AI recommendations across data sources, and alignment with physicians' dosing decisions. We calibrated CURATE.AI for each individual using three distinct datapoints that linked drug dose to clinical response. After calibration, participants entered a four-month active phase, receiving monthly CURATE.AI dosing recommendations. Results: Eighteen participants were recruited, and thirteen completed the study. Only three progressed to the active study phase, primarily due to insufficient dose adjustments required during the calibration phase. Adherence to scheduled visits was 76% and adherence to home monitoring averaged 81%. Barriers to adherence included technical issues and work-related conflicts. Participants expressed high satisfaction with monitoring and care ≥88%. Actionable dosing recommendations were generated for two of the three participants, with varying alignment to physician decisions depending on the data source used. Discussion: Calibration challenges emerged when applying AI-guided dosing in a chronic disease population. Limited dose titration opportunities and cautious clinical practice restricted the data generation needed for effective model calibration. Conclusions: This pilot demonstrates the feasibility of deploying CURATE.AI into outpatient care but underscores the importance of aligning data requirements with patient and clinical characteristics. Future studies should target newly diagnosed patient groups with greater dosing variability to optimise calibration and assess clinical utility.
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.