ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Agentic AI in Medicine: Challenges for Responsible Development and the Case for Clinical Testing Harnesses.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 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
Clinical medicine evaluates decision-support technology using methods built around a single output presented for clinician review. Agentic artificial intelligence does not fit this design. Agent scaffolding, the software infrastructure surrounding a large language model that turns passive text generation into active, multi-step execution, allows the model to retrieve information, invoke external tools, and act on the results before a clinician sees any of it. The relevant unit of clinical risk therefore shifts from a single inference to a trajectory of actions. We describe four challenges this creates for responsible development: silent error propagation across multi-step tasks, oversight that reviews conclusions rather than processes, validation that does not survive changes to model or tooling, and scope that widens faster than the evidence supporting it. We argue that each is addressed by a clinical testing harness: a structured evaluation environment comprising scenario libraries built from clinical edge cases, full-trajectory observability, explicit escalation testing, and staged evidence thresholds tied to scope of practice. Medicine already possesses these tools in the form of simulation, credentialling, and morbidity and mortality review, and requires their adaptation rather than their invention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42776404What 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.