It is concluded that AI tools have matured to the extent that they can improve diagnostic decision-making of clinicians and can assist institutions in increasing diagnostic safety.
Abstract
Abstract Diagnostic error, defined as missed, wrong, or delayed diagnoses or those not communicated to patients, is common, affecting 5–10 % of hospital admissions and clinic visits. Such errors cause patient harm in up to 1 in 100 of such encounters and account for 10 % of all hospital deaths and serious adverse events. About 80 % of diagnostic errors are potentially preventable, most resulting from flaws in clinician reasoning in formulating and testing diagnostic hypotheses. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI), and large language models (LLMs) in particular, has attracted great interest in how these technologies can reduce diagnostic error within the context of bedside or clinic consultations. This narrative review aims to provide practising clinicians with a comprehensible analysis of where AI and LLMs are currently positioned in assisting diagnostic performance in clinician-patient encounters based on contemporary state-of-the-art research. It attempts to answer seven questions relevant to clinician understanding and adoption of AI/LLMs. It concludes that AI tools have matured to the extent that they can improve diagnostic decision-making of clinicians and can assist institutions in increasing diagnostic safety. The rapid development of LLMs and ongoing release of new versions necessitate continuous monitoring of their evolving diagnostic capabilities. Importantly, a balanced approach is required where LLMs work to complement, rather than replace, the nuanced diagnostic reasoning of clinicians.
A narrative review of the available evidence presents a narrative review of the available evidence on the effect of LLMs on diagnostic reasoning, the optimal design of clinician-LLM interaction, the appropriate timing of consultation during the clinical encounter, the safest models of clinical-AI integration, and the m...
L. Corral-Gudino, M. Ramos-Casals, M. Marcos et al.· Medicina clínica (Ed. impres...· 0 citations
Abstract Objectives This study examines AI’s capacity to mitigate noise-related diagnostic errors, evaluates its impact on accuracy, and explores the interplay between AI-driven efficiency and human clinical reasoning, particularly in rare or complex cases. Background: Diagnostic errors in clinical reasoning are signif...
Current evidence supports clinician-supervised use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems rather than autonomous diagnosis, pending prospective and specialty-specific evaluation.
Yun-Jia Wu, Qi Yan, Dingcheng Tian· AI Medicine· 0 citations
It is concluded that LLM-based decision-support tools hold substantial promise as complementary — rather than autonomous — decision-support systems capable of transforming medication safety and pharmacy practice.
K. K. Kumar, Koyya Gowtham Reddy, K. Reddy· International Scientific Jou...· 0 citations
This Perspective concerns the most consequential of these applications: the autonomous triage of self-presenting, undifferentiated patients, with little or no clinician in the loop, and the evidence of safety does not yet exist.
Shayndhan Sivanathan, Shravan Nageswaran, Mehdi Zadem et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
This article proposes seven questions that clinicians can run through to evaluate any clinical AI tool in the time it takes to read an abstract, alongside a traffic-light schema for matching oversight to risk and a short list of demands clinicians should make of vendors and institutions.
Alaa Abdelqader, M. Alkhateeb, Abdullah Al-Marrawi et al.· Avicenna Journal of Medicine· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.