ArticleCureus2026
DR. INFO at the Point of Care: A Prospective Pilot Study of Physician-Perceived Value of an Agentic Artificial Intelligence Clinical Assistant.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Clinical documentation and information retrieval consume over half of physicians' working hours, contributing to cognitive overload and burnout. While artificial intelligence (AI) offers a potential solution, concerns over hallucinations and source reliability have limited adoption at the point of care. This study aimed to evaluate physician-perceived time efficiency, decision-making support, and satisfaction with DR. INFO, an agentic AI clinical assistant, in routine clinical practice. Methodology In this prospective, single-arm, pilot feasibility study, 29 physicians and medical students across multiple specialties in Portuguese healthcare institutions used DR. INFO v1.0 over five working days within a two-week period. Outcomes were assessed via daily Likert-scale evaluations (time saving and decision support) and a final Net Promoter Score (NPS). Non-parametric methods were used throughout, with bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) and sensitivity analysis to address non-response. Results Physicians reported high perceived time saving (mean = 4.27/5; 95% CI = 3.97-4.57) and decision support (mean = 4.16/5; 95% CI = 3.86-4.45), with ratings stable across the five-day study window. Among the 16 (55%) participants who completed the final evaluation, the NPS was 81.2, with no detractors; sensitivity analysis indicated an NPS of 44.8 under conservative non-response assumptions. Conclusions Physicians across specialties and career stages reported positive perceptions of DR. INFO for both time efficiency and clinical decision support within the study window. These findings are preliminary and should be confirmed in larger, controlled studies that include objective performance measures and independent accuracy verification.
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.