ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
AI Triage in Primary Care: Building Safer and More Equitable Real-World Evidence.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The evolving physician-AI relationship: a five-tier framework for integrating intelligent systems into clinical practice and medical education.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Maturity, Safety, and Equity of AI-Enabled Systems and Triage in Integrated Primary Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence triage in general practice is developing rapidly within the primary care digital transformation, promising efficiency gains and safety standardization in overwhelmed primary care systems. However, current evidence is drawn from retrospective validations, emergency settings, or vignettes, with scant evaluation of real-world outcomes and almost no equity-stratified safety data, despite known disparities across age, ethnicity, language, and deprivation. From a sociotechnical standpoint, which considers the fit between people, tasks, technology, and organizational context, risks arise not only from algorithmic bias and undertriage but also from human factors, workflow misalignment, governance gaps, and inadequate postdeployment monitoring. We argue that ensuring artificial intelligence triage is safe and equitable requires real-world evaluations in primary care settings, equity-focused performance reporting using theoretically informed frameworks, and rigorous postmarket surveillance. Without these, deployment may widen existing health inequalities rather than moderate them.
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.