ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
An auditable and source-verified framework for clinical AI decision support: integrating retrieval-augmented generation with data provenance.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of Large Language Models in Chronic Disease Care: Mixed Methods Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Agentic systems in computational pathology: architectures, evidence, and translational challenges.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- The evolution of AI-integrated genome editing and its challenges.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.