Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42500782›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

The Real "Catch" in Clinical Automation: Rethinking Artificial Intelligence for Healthcare Workflows.

B R Sathyakrishna, Andrew Lourdunathan, Punith Nagarajappa, Izhar Vinson Iyapillai, Ravichandran Subramaniam

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 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. Review
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

5 authors.

B R SathyakrishnaGeneral Surgery, St. Martha's Hospital, Bengaluru, IND.
Andrew LourdunathanGeneral Surgery, St. Martha's Hospital, Bengaluru, IND.
Punith NagarajappaGeneral Surgery, St. Martha's Hospital, Bengaluru, IND.
Izhar Vinson IyapillaiNeurosurgery, Gleneagles Hospital, Chennai, IND.
Ravichandran SubramaniamGeneral Surgery, SRM Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Chennai, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated impressive performance in controlled retrospective studies, yet many systems struggle to achieve meaningful operational utility when deployed in real-world clinical environments. Live healthcare workflows are characterized by documentation burdens, user-interface friction, variable data quality, and competing demands on clinician attention. These challenges can reduce the effectiveness of predictive systems and contribute to alert fatigue, workflow inefficiencies, and administrative burdens. This editorial, presented as a narrative perspective and conceptual synthesis, argues that successful clinical AI implementation requires a shift in focus from theoretical predictive accuracy toward practical workflow integration and floor efficiency. Effective clinical systems should function as supportive layers within healthcare workflows by reducing cognitive burden, improving documentation quality, and facilitating safer clinical decision-making. Approaches such as tiered information presentation, workflow-aware design, human oversight, and strict medicolegal frameworks, including mandatory electronic health record (EHR) "watermarking" and continuous audit trails, may help improve adoption while minimizing unintended consequences. By supporting accurate documentation and efficient chart completion, integrated AI has the potential to enhance operational performance, preserve clinician cognition, and facilitate safer patient care.

Indexed as

alert fatigueartificial intelligenceclinical automationclinical decision support systemselectronic health recordshealthcare workflowsmedical informaticspatient safetysmart on fhir

Identifiers

PMID42500782
PMCPMC13395953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.