Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42750674›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

The Invisible Human-in-the-Loop: An Evolutionary Concept Analysis of Artificial Intelligence in Nursing Assistant Practice.

Crissinee Sucharitrak

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 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.

Crissinee SucharitrakNursing, Santiago Canyon College, Orange, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly entering long-term care (LTC) environments, but its significance for the workforce performing the vast majority of hands-on care tasks, certified nursing assistants (CNAs), remains unclear. CNAs remain underrepresented in the literature on AI in nursing, which has focused on registered nurses (RNs) as clinical decision-makers. The missing element inhibits the conceptualization process and thus the research, teaching, and policymaking processes. To define this concept in the age of generative AI, this paper conducts a concept analysis using Rodgers' evolutionary methodology. The analysis is based on the nursing, LTC, and direct care technology literature. It involves 65 sources (33 empirical and 32 conceptual, methodological, governance, and policy sources) found through systematic database search and purposive interdisciplinary sampling. The four defining attributes that came up include: deployment embedded into the task as opposed to the decision; augmentation of a person who has no clinical decision-making authority; mediated agency; and dependency on interfaces that can be used by a minimally trained, low-literacy workforce. The antecedents included an unstable workforce, top-down implementation, and lack of proper training; the consequences included improved documentation but also increased surveillance, yet the influence on care quality is unknown. As an analytical contribution, the analysis develops the construct of the invisible human-in-the-loop. The concept of AI in nursing assistant practice is nascent but developing rapidly, and clarifying it now is necessary for inclusive technology design and a health informatics agenda that includes the direct-care workforce.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecertified nursing assistantconcept analysisdirect-care workforcegenerative ailong-term carenursing informatics

Identifiers

PMID42750674
PMCPMC13577816

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.