Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42339137›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026

Governing autonomous AI in clinical care: the window is narrowing.

Katherine W Eisenberg, Kavita K Patel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Katherine W EisenbergDyna AI, EBSCO Information Services, Ipswich, MA 01938, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5186-1763
Kavita K PatelDepartment of Medicine, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9114-9890

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence systems in clinical care are moving beyond decision support into autonomous action-scheduling visits, initiating orders, and influencing insurance decisions such as prior authorization-yet, the governance infrastructure to deploy them safely is lagging. Primary care, where guideline-adherent care for a typical panel would require physicians to work more hours than there are in a day, is a natural deployment target and exemplifies this tension. While ample opportunities for artificial intelligence exist in almost every aspect of medicine, governance structures have not kept pace: accountability mechanisms, performance standards, and independent post-deployment monitoring remain weak, and the ability to oversee these systems often mirrors existing resource inequities. We propose that health systems and policymakers should risk-stratify autonomous actions by clinical consequence of error, tie procurement and value-based payment participation to minimum evaluation standards, and build shared governance infrastructure with sustainable funding so autonomous artificial intelligence narrows, rather than widens, existing care and equity gaps.

Indexed as

agentic AIartificial intelligenceautonomous AIclinical decision supportdigital dividehealth care governancehealth equityhealth policypatient safetyprimary care

Identifiers

PMID42339137
PMCPMC13284414

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.