ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
AI is already in the theatre of war just not on the side of the patient: clinical chatbots, telemedicine, and an agenda for "AI for medical humanity".
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in modern warfare, mainly through surveillance, targeting, and military decision-making. However, its potential to support clinicians and patients in conflict settings remains underdeveloped. Frontline medical teams must make time-critical, high-stakes decisions with scarce diagnostics, disrupted referrals, insecure communications, changing injury patterns, and irregular access to specialist expertise. Humanitarian medicine needs a proactive clinician-facing AI agenda that strengthens clinical judgment, not replaces it. We propose a two-stage model: a bounded, protocol-anchored chatbot as the "first mile" of point-of-care support, and telemedicine as the "second mile" for specialist oversight and accountability. The chatbot would structure assessments, guide protocol-based actions, identify missing information and areas of uncertainty, generate standard handovers, and trigger escalations. Remote specialists would provide context and retain responsibility for clinical decisions. Safe deployment requires transparent protocols, constrained scope, hard refusals, awareness of uncertainty, data minimisation, offline-first functionality, adversarial threat modelling, and safeguards against coercive or dual-use applications. Evaluation should use locally informed simulation, silent deployment, prospective monitoring of deviations and harms, predefined safety thresholds, and independent humanitarian oversight before wider clinical use. AI will increasingly shape conflict medicine, with or without humanitarian engagement. The priority is to ensure design, governance, and evaluation are guided by patient safety, medical neutrality, local involvement, and clinical accountability, placing AI on the side of the patient, not the machinery of war.
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.