Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41716615›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

An auditable and source-verified framework for clinical AI decision support: integrating retrieval-augmented generation with data provenance.

Fidelis Fidelis Alu, Sunkanmi Oluwadare

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. The evolution of AI-integrated genome editing and its challenges.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026
    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

2 authors.

Fidelis Fidelis AluSchool of Information Technology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Sunkanmi OluwadareSchool of Information Technology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise in supporting clinical decision making, yet adoption in healthcare remains limited by concerns regarding transparency, verifiability, and accountability of AI-generated recommendations. In particular, generative and data-driven CDS systems often provide outputs without clearly exposing the evidentiary basis or reasoning process underlying their conclusions. This article presents a conceptual framework for auditable and source-verified AI-based clinical decision support, grounded in principles from evidence-based medicine, data provenance, and trustworthy AI. The proposed architecture integrates a curated medical knowledge base with explicit provenance metadata, a retrieval-augmented reasoning (RAG) engine that links generated recommendations to identifiable clinical guidelines and peer-reviewed sources, and a tamper-evident audit logging mechanism that records system inputs, retrieved evidence, and inference steps for retrospective review. This work does not introduce a new algorithm nor report a prototype implementation; rather, it synthesizes existing technical approaches into a coherent system design intended to improve traceability, clinician trust, and regulatory readiness. Key feasibility challenges are discussed, including knowledge-base governance and updating, citation fidelity in RAG architectures, bias propagation from underlying evidence, latency and usability trade-offs, privacy considerations, and alignment with emerging regulatory frameworks such as FDA Software as a Medical Device guidance and the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. The article concludes by outlining a staged evaluation roadmap involving simulation studies and clinician-centered user research to guide future implementation and empirical validation.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)auditabilityclinical decision support (CDS)data provenanceexplainabilityhealthcare informaticssource verificationtrustworthy AI

Identifiers

PMID41716615
PMCPMC12913532

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.