ReviewWorld journal of emergency medicine2026
Artificial intelligence in the emergency department-- applications, perceptions and limitations: a narrative review.
Review in World journal of emergency medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into emergency department (ED) workflows to assist with time-sensitive decision-making, documentation, diagnostics, and education. AI encompasses multiple computational approaches, including traditional machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and large language models (LLMs). We aim to provide insight into the current integration of AI into the multiple clinical spheres of the emergency medicine.
methodsThis narrative review analyzes available literature on the implementation of ML-based predictive systems, DL-based image and signal interpretation tools, and LLM-driven documentation and clinical reasoning support within emergency medicine.
resultsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed and SCOPUS from its inception to October 30, 2025. Overall, 189 articles were found, among them 51 were included in the final review. ML and DL models demonstrated strong performance in electrocardiogram interpretation, radiographic triage, and sepsis prediction, in some cases outperforming traditional clinical scoring tools. LLMs showed promise in documentation support, discharge summary generation, triage assistance, and educational applications; however, concerns remain regarding generalizability and clinical reliability. AI-assisted triage systems improved prioritization and time-to-provider metrics in selected settings but require further validation.
conclusionAI holds substantial potential to augment emergency care delivery. Nevertheless, issues of transparency, bias, accountability, and human oversight remain critical. Current evidence supports AI as a clinical support tool rather than a replacement for physician judgment.
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.