Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41666194›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Artificial intelligence agents in healthcare research: A scoping review.

Basile Njei, Yazan A Al-Ajlouni, Ulrick Sidney Kanmounye, Sarpong Boateng, Guy Loic Nguefang, Nelvis Njei, Shadi Hamouri, Ahmad F Al-Ajlouni

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Agentic Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology.International journal of dermatology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

8 authors.

Basile NjeiSection of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0714-4368
Yazan A Al-AjlouniInternational Medicine Program, Yale Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
Ulrick Sidney KanmounyeResearch Department, Association of Future African Neurosurgeons, Yaounde, Cameroon.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6791-1018
Sarpong BoatengYale Affiliated Hospitals Program, Bridgeport, Connecticut, United States of America.
Guy Loic NguefangTexas Tech University Health Science Center, Odessa, Texas, United States of America.
Nelvis NjeiMachine Learning and Artificial Intelligence, Ellicott City, Maryland, United States of America.
Shadi HamouriAl-Balqa Applied University, Salt, Jordan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1764-9514
Ahmad F Al-AjlouniAl-Balqa Applied University, Salt, Jordan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionArtificial Intelligence (AI) agents are rapidly transforming healthcare delivery, enabling real-time decision support and sophisticated patient interaction at scale. However, the scientific landscape of this rapidly growing, multidisciplinary field remains fragmented, with technical innovation outpacing translational research and the establishment of ethical governance frameworks. To address this gap, we conducted a comprehensive scoping review analysis of AI agent research in healthcare.

methodsWe followed scoping review methodology (PRISMA-ScR guidelines). Searches across PubMed, Web of Science, arXiv, and medRxiv were conducted from January 2015 to December 7, 2025.

resultsThe search identified 1,070 records, of which 43 studies were ultimately included after full-text review. Of these 43 included studies, 36 were published in 2025. Systems were categorized into 8 conversational agents, 17 workflow/automation assistants, and 18 multimodal decision support agents. The core mechanism across all archetypes was external tool use (e.g., retrieval-augmented generation or code execution) for grounding and iterative self-correction (e.g., multi-agent debate or self-debugging loops) for refinement. Evaluation settings were predominantly simulated environments or laboratory studies, with few clinical pilots or real-world deployments. Primary reported outcomes focused on process measures (efficiency) and diagnostic accuracy; clinical outcomes and safety endpoints were rarely addressed.

conclusionAgentic AI systems are rapidly evolving from conceptual frameworks to functional prototypes, primarily targeting complex decision-making and workflow automation. While agentic capabilities are increasingly integrated, research heavily favors simulated evaluations. Future research must prioritize clinical trials and the robust assessment of safety, usability, and clinical efficacy before widespread adoption.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHealth Services ResearchDelivery of Health CareHumansIntelligent Systems

Identifiers

PMID41666194
PMCPMC12890167

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.