Cited by 16Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Implications of integrating large language models into clinical decision making

Open access
Christof, Michael, Armoundas, Antonis A.·2025·Communications Medicine

Abstract

Christof & Armoundas explore how large language models (LLMs) can augment clinician-level clinical reasoning across the three pillars-framing the encounter, diagnostic reasoning, and treatment/management-highlighting gains in information synthesis and pattern recognition while underscoring limits that require continuous human judgment and oversight. They advocate a bias-aware, privacy-preserving, and rigorously validated “human-in-the-loop” deployment that safeguards patient agency and clinical accountability, while integrating LLMs into real-world workflows via clear clinician imperatives.

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/s43856-025-01216-8

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Modern frontier architectures have already internalized the core corpus of medical literature within their parametric knowledge base.

    “This suggests that modern frontier architectures have already internalized the core corpus of medical literature within their parametric knowledge base.[12]”

    From Multi-Agent Dynamic Refinement Outperforms Static RAG in Clinical Reasoning for Complex Nephrology Cases (2026) · cites this paper as [12]

    Table 2 (Introduction; page unavailable) says LLMs align patient information with vast training datasets of medical knowledge, including textbooks and clinical guidelines. The paper does not establish that modern frontier architectures have internalized the core corpus of medical literature in their parametric knowledge base. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Christof, M., & Armoundas, A. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester (US)
  • Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Armoundas, Antonis A.
Venue
Communications Medicine
Published
2025-11-20
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
490-490
ISSN
2730-664X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416425606
Cited by
16
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 1
FWCI
3.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Communications Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • American Heart Association (3R21EB026164-02S1, R21EB026164-01, 17UNPG33840017)
  • National Institutes of Health (17UNPG33840017)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R21HL137870, R01HL135335, R01HL161008)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R21EB026164)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
large language models, clinical decision-making, clinical reasoning, human-in-the-loop, diagnostic reasoning, treatment planning, privacy preservation, patient agency, clinical accountability

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