ReviewBMJ digital health & AI2026
How artificial intelligence is disrupting the field of medical knowledge and evaluation: a narrative review.
Review in BMJ digital health & AI, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although artificial intelligence (AI) shows considerable promise in healthcare, its introduction and safe and effective exploitation involve several challenges. We argue that to maximise the benefits of AI and understand, track and mitigate potential harms there must be a shift in how AI is evaluated. Evaluation should be more closely linked to the local contexts in which AI is deployed and used and better integrated with clinical practice. To support this shift, we propose three interrelated levels of evaluation: evaluation of implementation, which examines transformations in contextually situated practices; evaluation of optimisation, which explores changes to clinical pathways over extended periods; and evaluation of scaling, which focuses on coordination through regional and national structures. This approach offers significant opportunities to advance both healthcare practice and the epistemology of medical knowledge.
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.