Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41889498›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026

ABC'S of AI: proposing a clinician's framework for the interpretation of artificial intelligence studies.

Brian Murray, Seth R Bauer, Yanjun Gao, Erin F Barreto, Kelli Henry, Kaitlin Blotske, Andrea Sikora

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Brian MurrayUniversity of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy, Aurora, CO, United States.
Seth R BauerDepartment of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Yanjun GaoUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.
Erin F BarretoMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Kelli HenryUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.
Kaitlin BlotskeUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.
Andrea SikoraUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning have emerged as transformative analytic methods capable of identifying patterns and proposing treatment strategies from complex, heterogeneous data generated in patient care settings. However, translating reports of AI tools into clinical decision-making requires careful interpretation and contextualization. Here, we present a structured framework (ABCDEFG framework) for clinicians to critically appraise studies reporting AI tools using a high-profile reinforcement learning analysis of vasopressin initiation in septic shock as a case example. We highlight key methodological strengths including adherence to reporting standards, alignment with clinical outcomes, and external validation. We also identify limitations related to causal inference, reward structure design, assumptions about state representation, and implementation readiness. Our framework emphasizes the importance of rigorous, clinically grounded critique before integrating AI tools into practice, and provides a roadmap for clinicians to assess the reliability and relevance of emerging AI-based decision support.

Indexed as

analysisartificial intelligencecritical careframeworkmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID41889498
PMCPMC13012965

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.