Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42304602›Full record

ArticleJournal of Yeungnam medical science2026

Are artificial intelligence (AI) agents ready for medicine and biomedical research? A narrative review.

Sangzin Ahn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Yeungnam medical science, 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

1 author.

Sangzin AhnDepartment of Pharmacology and Institute of Pharmacogenomics and Precision Medicine, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea. sangzinahn@inje.ac.kr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) agents extend large language models from single-turn text generation to systems that pursue goals through planning, retrieval, tool use, code execution, memory, feedback, and role coordination. In medicine and biomedical research, this shift is creating early systems for clinical calculations, risk prediction, oncology decision support, omics analysis, hypothesis development, laboratory automation, and research writing. However, the evidence remains uneven. Clinical examples are the most defensible when agents use validated calculators, curated clinical tools, or guideline-grounded modules under human oversight. Biomedical discovery systems exhibit broader workflow capabilities; however, many claims still rely on preprints, narrow benchmarks, simulated settings, or domain-specific demonstrations. For clinicians and biomedical researchers, the immediate challenge is not to decide whether agents will replace experts but to understand what tasks can be delegated, what evidence is needed, and what human judgment must be preserved. This narrative review explains what makes an AI system agentic, summarizes its representative clinical and discovery applications, and outlines safeguards for evaluation, reproducibility, and oversight. Biomedical readers should expect AI agents to enter medicine and research first as constrained, auditable workflow infrastructures. These infrastructures may reorganize biomedical work; however, accountability should remain with the clinicians and investigators.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceAutomationBiomedical researchClinical decision support systemsPatient safety

Identifiers

PMID42304602
PMCPMC13373684

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.