Cited by 2,246Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationElectronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine

Open access

Abstract

The development of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies in medicine is advancing rapidly, but real-world clinical implementation has not yet become a reality. Here we review some of the key practical issues surrounding the implementation of AI into existing clinical workflows, including data sharing and privacy, transparency of algorithms, data standardization, and interoperability across multiple platforms, and concern for patient safety. We summarize the current regulatory environment in the United States and highlight comparisons with other regions in the world, notably Europe and China.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-018-0307-0

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y. & Courville, A. Deep Learning (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016).
  2. How long it takes the US FDA to approve 510(k) submissions. Emergo https://www.emergobyul.com/resources/research/fda-510k-review-times-research (2013).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
He, J., Baxter, S. L., Xu, J., Xu, J., Zhou, X., & Zhang, K.
Affiliations
  • First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University (CN)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Beijing Tongren Hospital (CN)
  • Fudan University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • He, Jianxing
  • Zhang, Kang
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2019-01
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
30-36
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W2906295032
Cited by
2,246
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 308 · 2025: 420 · 2024: 395 · 2023: 356 · 2022: 282 · 2021: 251 · 2020: 164 · 2019: 69
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Guangzhou Medical University
  • Guangzhou University
  • Guangzhou Regenerative Medicine and Health Guangdong Laboratory
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (T15LM011271)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
artificial intelligence in healthcare, clinical implementation, clinical workflow, data sharing, data privacy, algorithmic transparency, data standardization, interoperability, patient safety, AI regulation, health policy
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Medicine, Reference Standards, Social Control, Formal, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review