ReviewNature medicine2026
Scaling medical AI across clinical contexts.
Review in Nature medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- LungGPT: A unified multimodal system for interpretable diagnosis and clinical decision support of respiratory diseases.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Article
- AI-Based Spatial Burn Assessment with MLLMs: Body Region, 3 × 3 Grid Classification and Burn Instance Counting from Photographs and Semantic Segmentation Masks.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- The generalist's context advantage: why family physicians may be uniquely positioned for artificial intelligence-augmented clinical practice.Korean journal of family medicine · 2026Article
- Harnessing big data and artificial intelligence in transfusion medicine: Opportunities for precision, safety and efficiency.Vox sanguinis · 2026Review
- High-risk without safeguards? The EU AI Act and the push for deregulation of medical AI.BMJ digital health & AI · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including clinical language models, vision-language models and multimodal health record models, are used to summarize clinical notes, answer questions and support decisions. Their adaptation to new populations, specialties or care settings often relies on fine-tuning, prompting or retrieval from external knowledge bases. These strategies can scale poorly and risk contextual errors-outputs that appear plausible but miss critical patient or situational information. We envision context switching as an emergent solution. Context switching adjusts model reasoning at inference, without retraining. Generative models can tailor outputs to patient biology, care setting or disease. Multimodal models can switch between notes, laboratory results, imaging and genomics, even when some data are missing or delayed. Agent models can coordinate tools and roles based on task and user context. In each case, context switching enables medical AI to adapt across specialties, populations and geographies. This approach requires advances in data design, model architectures and evaluation frameworks, and establishes a foundation for medical AI that scales to an infinite number of contexts, while remaining reliable and suited to real-world care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41634392What 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.