ReviewNature medicine2026
A clinical environment simulator for dynamic AI evaluation.
Review in Nature medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Diagnosis of Esophageal Manometry: A Narrative Review.Current gastroenterology reports · 2026Review
- Language-Guided Segmentation of Medical Images: A Review of Foundation Models.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- clickBrick prompt engineering: optimizing large language model performance in clinical psychiatry.Npj mental health research · 2026Article
- Hard to Halt: Automation Bias in Agent-Driven Sequencing Prior Authorization Workflows.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical evaluation of large language models (LLMs) currently relies on static datasets and isolated scenarios that fail to capture the cascading effects of healthcare decisions. We propose the Clinical Environment Simulator (CES), a framework that evaluates clinical LLMs within digital hospital environments where every decision dynamically alters future states. The CES would use a parallel simulation architecture: a 'hospital engine' that tracks bed availability, staff workloads and equipment status in real time, and a 'patient engine' that simulates disease progression and treatment responses based on LLM interventions. Unlike current benchmarks, the CES framework requires clinical LLMs to execute decisions through realistic electronic health record interfaces, while managing trade-offs between individual patient optimization and system-wide efficiency. The CES enables three critical evaluations absent from current benchmarks: temporal reasoning under evolving constraints, where delayed diagnostics can lead to patient deterioration; resource-aware decision-making, where aggressive workups for one patient may exhaust capacity needed by others; and operational resilience, through adversarial testing with simultaneous emergencies and system failures. By scoring LLM performance on both clinical outcomes and operational metrics, the CES represents a shift toward evaluating clinical LLMs as a dynamic and integrated component of healthcare delivery systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41820673What 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.