ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Personal Health Large Language Models and the Negotiation of Medical Authority in Clinical Care: Opportunities, Risks, and Governance.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlabelled: Personal health large language models (PH-LLMs) are patient-facing conversational systems that synthesize user-entered information, patient-generated health data, wearable data, and selected personal health records-where users choose to connect them-into personalized, longitudinal, action-oriented health narratives. Unlike generic health chatbots that mainly provide one-off responses to isolated questions, PH-LLMs may generate continuing interpretations, priorities, and candidate next steps that patients bring into clinical encounters. In contrast to electronic health record-tethered clinical artificial intelligence (AI), they often originate outside institutional oversight and may be selected, used, or trusted by patients before professional review. This viewpoint examines how PH-LLMs may reshape the negotiation of medical authority by contributing to a shift from the traditional dyadic clinician-patient relationship toward a triadic model of negotiated authority, in which clinicians may increasingly need to mediate among clinical evidence, patient values, and algorithmic narratives. PH-LLMs may support patient participation by organizing symptoms, contextualizing home-monitoring and wearable data, improving health literacy, assisting chronic disease self-management, and preparing patients for more collaborative visits. Patient-facing AI narratives may also introduce distinct risks. At the individual level, these include inaccurate or incomplete responses arising from imprecise queries or missing context, misinterpretation of otherwise accurate information in the absence of clinical context, and contextually biased or poorly matched advice across demographic, cultural, linguistic, disability-related, or socioeconomic contexts. At the system level, they include authority conflict when AI recommendations diverge from clinical judgment, fragmentation of clinical truth, privacy and data-governance concerns, diffusion of accountability when harm results from advice produced outside clinical governance, and inequitable access to premium tools and continuous monitoring devices. To address these challenges, we propose a 3-layer clinical governance framework for patient-brought PH-LLM narratives. The first layer, evidence and provenance, makes AI-generated narratives epistemically legible by clarifying platform identity, data sources, temporal anchoring, uncertainty, and privacy-relevant data-use and retention conditions. The second layer, clinical arbitration and workflow integration, uses risk-stratified intake, proportionate documentation, escalation triggers, and equity-preserving workflows to embed PH-LLM outputs into routine care. The third layer, competence and accountability, defines the communication competencies, AI literacy supports, institutional responsibilities, vendor accountability, and risk-proportionate verification duties needed for triadic care. This framework is a conceptual and governance-oriented proposal rather than a validated clinical protocol. Future empirical work should evaluate its feasibility, documentation burden, equity effects, clinical safety impact, and acceptability among patients, clinicians, and health systems. Governed through these interdependent layers, PH-LLMs may serve as supporting infrastructure for safer, person-centered longitudinal care.
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.