ArticlePloS one2026
Artificial intelligence agents in healthcare research: A scoping review.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agentic Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology.International journal of dermatology · 2026Article
- The next paradigm in bioinformatics: a review of multi-agent systems and foundational models for end-to-end scientific discovery.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Article
- Acceptance of Medical History-Taking Supported by Artificial Intelligence and Chatbots: A Population-Based Survey in Germany.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A primer on artificial intelligence for palliative care educators.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Review
- Differentiated memory and scientific cognition in AI research agents.Frontiers in big data · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.