Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42270325›Full record

ReviewGut and liver2026

Data-Informed Intuition in Hepatology: Integrating Evidence, Context, and Clinical Reasoning.

Jin Dong Kim, Mi Na Kim, Do Young Kim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gut and liver, 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

3 authors.

Jin Dong KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Cheju Halla General Hospital, Jeju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9660-6303
Mi Na KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5381-230X
Do Young KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-8327-3439

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence and data-driven models are changing hepatology, but expert clinical judgment remains essential. Liver diseases are complex and evolve over time, requiring reasoning that links numerical data with clinical context. We propose data-informed intuition (DII), a conceptual framework bridging evidence-based medicine with clinical experience and reflective reasoning. Instead of presenting a validated prediction model, it proposes DII as an integrative scaffold for clinical reasoning that can be examined and revised. DII is viewed as a trainable skill that improves with data feedback, not mere guesswork. Clinicians continually calibrate their judgment as patient information accumulates. In hepatology, DII helps interpret disease trajectories, adapt predictive scores to context, and handle uncertainty in liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma, acute liver failure, and related conditions. The DII framework describes eight axes (time, rate, magnitude, pattern, context, causality, integration, and uncertainty) that make visible how data and intuition interact in clinical reasoning. Integrating DII into fellowship training and artificial intelligence-assisted systems could nurture clinicians who combine algorithmic precision with human insight. This perspective summarizes the conceptual basis, clinical uses, and educational value of DII, and outlines both a research agenda for its empirical testing and a path toward data-informed professionalism in hepatology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical ReasoningEvidence-Based MedicineGastroenterologyIntuitionClinical CompetenceHumansArtificial intelligenceClinical reasoningData-informed intuitionEducationHepatology

Identifiers

PMID42270325
PMCPMC13364745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.