Aug 2026· PLOS Digital Health· Vol 5· 0 citations· 72 references
Medicine
TL;DR
This narrative review outlines the limitations of traditional evaluation frameworks and proposes a paradigm shift toward adaptive, iterative, and context-specific assessment methodologies that can progress from a promising technology to reliable clinical tools that improve patient outcomes, support clinical decision-making, and uphold ethical standards in routine practice.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) predictive models demonstrate potential for transforming clinical decision-making across medicine. However, conventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the gold standard for evaluating medical interventions, are ill-suited for clinical AI tools due to their static design, lengthy timelines, and inability to accommodate algorithms that evolve and adapt to changing clinical contexts. In this narrative review, we outline the limitations of traditional evaluation frameworks and propose a paradigm shift toward adaptive, iterative, and context-specific assessment methodologies. Evaluating clinical AI in practice requires three interdependent but epistemologically distinct activities: performance monitoring, which tracks the technical characteristics of the deployed model (calibration, discrimination, data drift, alert burden, fairness, workflow fidelity); clinical impact monitoring, which observationally and prospectively tracks whether the initial clinical benefit appears sustained over time; and scientific evidence generation, which produces causal estimates of deployment effects on patient outcomes through pragmatic, adaptive trial designs and causal inference techniques. We propose a predictive-AI-specific framework that links performance monitoring, clinical impact monitoring, evidence generation, causal estimands, and governance of model updates into one coherent decision pathway for clinicians and trialists. We present a governance-driven escalation protocol specifying when monitoring signals should trigger formal evidence generation, a decision pathway mapping signal types (performance or clinical impact) to trial design classifications, and a guide to causal inference methods for clinical AI trials. Drawing from adaptive platform and pragmatic trial designs, we recommend continuous monitoring approaches that prioritize patient-centered outcomes, health equity, and workflow integration over narrow performance metrics, and provide actionable steps to design a clinical AI trial. Successful implementation requires clinician engagement, transparency, and ongoing education regarding AI capabilities and limitations. Within this new evaluation paradigm, predictive AI can progress from a promising technology to reliable clinical tools that improve patient outcomes, support clinical decision-making, and uphold ethical standards in routine practice.
AI demonstrates strong potential to improve the effectiveness, safety, and quality of healthcare, however, broader clinical adoption remains constrained by regulatory requirements, interpretability gaps, data quality issues, and workflow integration challenges, underscoring the need for stronger validation practices an...
Ghulam Hussain Noori, Shaista Bibi, Seung Won Lee· Inquiry : a journal of medic...· 0 citations
It is argued that achieving the potential of AI in oncology clinical trials will require rigorous prospective validation, harmonized regulatory standards, and coordination among clinicians, trialists, regulators, industry and patients.
Andrea Villa, A. Eadie, David Synnott et al.· Nature Reviews Clinical Onco...· 0 citations
This critical narrative review examines evidence across the three domains in which artificial intelligence has been most extensively applied to mental health, namely diagnostic classification and risk detection, treatment personalisation, and continuous patient monitoring, and asks why demonstrated technical performanc...
Oyebode Mary Oluwabunmi, Anyebe Daniel Ameh, Jacob Miracle Godswill et al.· Journal of medicine and heal...· 0 citations
A scoping review with systematic evidence mapping across five electronic sources, screened 1,649 exportable records, and provisionally included 557 unique studies that met predefined criteria for goal-directed task execution, tool use, interaction with external resources, feedback-based refinement, or multi-agent colla...
Zheng Tong, Yang Liu, Wan-Shu Fan et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
A narrative review synthesises the current literature, regulatory frameworks, and ethical guidelines about the medicolegal dimensions of AI in healthcare, without adherence to a formal systematic review protocol, to address significant medico-legal and ethical challenges facing AI in healthcare.
M. Niriella, Krishanni Prabagar, I. Wijesingha et al.· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.