Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41581898›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Patterns of AI Use in Clinical Work by Hospitalists: Survey Study.

Prabhava Bagla, Jasmah Hanna, Bhargav Marthambadi, Stacey Watkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

4 authors.

Prabhava BaglaDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5328-0638
Jasmah HannaDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5157-5136
Bhargav MarthambadiDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2139-6875
Stacey WatkinsDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0230-2272

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) tools are widely and freely available for clinical use. Understanding hospitalists' real-world adoption patterns in the absence of organizational endorsement is essential for health care institutions to develop governance frameworks and optimize AI integration.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate hospitalists' use of AI, examining the AI platforms being used, frequency of use, and clinical contexts of application. We hypothesized that AI use is more common among younger, less experienced hospitalists, albeit at an overall low frequency.

methodsAn anonymous online survey was distributed via email to all 70 hospitalists (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) providing direct patient care at a large urban academic tertiary care hospital. Demographic data, the AI platform used (if any), the purpose for AI use, and the frequency of use information were collected. The CHERRIES (Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) checklist was used for creating, testing, administering, and reporting the results of the survey. Chi-square test was used where possible; when expected cell values were low, the Fisher's exact test was used instead. The Friedman test and the pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used for analyzing the differences in the frequency of AI use for various tasks. Likert-scale responses to frequency questions (never, rarely, sometimes, often, and always) were converted to ordinal values (1-5, respectively) to facilitate analysis.

resultsOf the 70 providers, 54 (77.1%) responded to the survey. No significant differences in AI usage were observed across shift type, years of practice, time allocation to hospitalist duties, sex, age, or provider designation, contrary to our hypothesis. Overall, 36 of 54 respondents (66.7%; 95% CI 53.4%-77.8%) reported using AI in clinical practice. OpenEvidence was the most used platform (28/54, 51.9%), far exceeding general-purpose tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT (4/54, 7.4%), suggesting a preference for medical-specific platforms. Among nonusers, primary concerns were AI accuracy and preference for established resources. The most common application was answering miscellaneous clinical questions (32/36, 88.9%), generating differential diagnoses (31/36, 86.1%), and determining management options (31/36, 86.1%), with much lower use for patient education materials (16/36, 44.4%). There was a statistically significant difference in the frequency of AI use across these clinical scenarios (Friedman test χ

conclusionsTwo-thirds of hospitalists organically adopted AI despite the absence of institutional oversight. AI is predominantly used as a supplementary decision support tool, with a preference for a medical-specific platform. Health care institutions must develop governance frameworks, validation protocols, and educational initiatives to ensure safe and effective AI deployment in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHospitalistsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesAIartificial intelligenceclinical decision support systemsgenerative AIgenerative artificial intelligencehealthcare technology adoptionhospitalistpatterns of usephysician

Identifiers

PMID41581898
PMCPMC12996894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.