ArticleJournal of Yeungnam medical science2026
Are artificial intelligence (AI) agents ready for medicine and biomedical research? A narrative review.
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.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.