Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42417954›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2026

Ontological deskilling: clinical expertise and the changing disease object in precision medicine.

Anastasios E Germenis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 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.

Anastasios E GermenisDepartment of Immunology and Histocompatibility, School of Medicine, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece. agermen@med.uth.gr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3315-6947

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concerns about physician deskilling in AI-enabled medicine usually ask how automated systems substitute for, attenuate, or distort clinical capacities. This article argues that precision medicine introduces a distinct object-side problem. Its dominant classificatory operation is not simply finer nosological classification but stratification for action: patients are grouped and regrouped for treatment selection, risk allocation, surveillance, trial eligibility, and prediction. In doing so, precision medicine fragments established disease categories, connects conditions across former boundaries, temporalizes disease into trajectories and thresholds, and produces actionable risk states and algorithmic subgroups. If clinical expertise is acquired through relatively stable nosological categories, then preserved skills may become insufficient when those categories no longer organize the clinical object in the same way. I call this failure of fit ontological deskilling. The article distinguishes it from technological deskilling, diagnostic uncertainty, overdiagnosis, medicalization, plastic diagnostics, and ordinary adaptive-learning demands. Drawing on Canguilhem, Mol, phenomenological intentionality, and accounts of expertise, it argues that ontological deskilling changes the conditions of clinical judgment, uncertainty, and responsibility. The appropriate response is critical nosological awareness: the ability to use disease categories competently while recognizing their contingency, plurality of functions, and susceptibility to transformation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical CompetencePrecision MedicineHumansPhilosophy, MedicalArtificial intelligenceClinical expertiseDeskillingDisease classificationPhilosophy of medicinePrecision medicineUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID42417954
PMCPMC13652772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.