ArticleJMA journal2026
Generative AI Needs a Pilot: Positioning Advanced Practice Nurses as the "Human-in-the-Loop" for Primary Care Safety.
Article in JMA journal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly integrated into primary care, supporting documentation, clinical summaries, and patient-facing communication. While its potential to reduce cognitive workload is widely recognized, GenAI introduces a safety paradox: as outputs become more fluent, inaccuracies such as hallucinations and omissions may become harder to detect. This creates a largely unrecognized burden in routine care, referred to as the "verification tax," which risks redistributing rather than alleviating clinician workload. A central question is not whether GenAI is sufficiently accurate, but how its outputs are incorporated into clinical workflows and safety structures. In this commentary, we propose a human-in-the-loop (HITL) model that positions advanced practice nurses (APNs) as first-pass reviewers for high-volume, context-sensitive GenAI outputs. This role focuses on routing, contextualization, and verification, ensuring that machine-generated content is appropriately interpreted before influencing patient care. Given their roles in patient education, care coordination, and longitudinal management, APNs may be well-suited to address the gap between standardized model outputs and individualized clinical contexts. A conservative routing architecture and minimum governance framework are outlined, including explicit safety boundaries, structured escalation pathways, and the need for protected time for verification work. Potential limitations include the risk of redistributing invisible labor, model and workflow drift, and equity concerns in patient-facing communication. These considerations suggest that appropriate resourcing, audit mechanisms, and role-based governance are necessary. Positioning APNs as first-pass HITL reviewers may offer a pragmatic approach to integrating GenAI into primary care while supporting patient safety and interprofessional collaboration.
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.