Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41809578›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

The augmented physician: AI and the future of clinical cognition.

Khayreddine Bouabida, Breitner Gomes Chaves, Enoch Anane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Khayreddine BouabidaUConn Health, Farmington, CT, United States.
Breitner Gomes ChavesDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Enoch AnaneUMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medicine stands at a cognitive tipping point as the volume of biomedical information expands faster than clinicians can realistically monitor, synthesize, and apply new evidence in routine practice. Once a marker of scientific progress, this acceleration now challenges the foundations of clinical expertise, patient safety, and medical education. This Perspective examines the widening gap between evidence generation and evidence implementation, arguing that artificial intelligence should not replace clinicians but serve as a cognitive partner. Properly designed and ethically governed systems can assist clinicians by organizing and contextualizing large bodies of information, enabling greater focus on clinical judgment, empathy, and human connection. When integrated thoughtfully, artificial intelligence has the potential to strengthen patient engagement, reduce administrative burden, and support shared human and machine cognition in care delivery. Sustaining clinical excellence in an era of accelerating information growth will depend on embracing artificial intelligence as a collaborative tool and redefining how physicians learn, think, and care. The future of medicine will remain profoundly human, precisely because it is intelligently augmented.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)clinical cognitionclinical decision supportmedical educationpatient-centered carephysician burnout

Identifiers

PMID41809578
PMCPMC12968162

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.