Cited by 255Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence Applications

The Integration of Artificial Intelligence into Clinical Practice

Open access
Karalis, Vangelis D.·2024·Applied Biosciences

Abstract

The purpose of this literature review is to provide a fundamental synopsis of current research pertaining to artificial intelligence (AI) within the domain of clinical practice. Artificial intelligence has revolutionized the field of medicine and healthcare by providing innovative solutions to complex problems. One of the most important benefits of AI in clinical practice is its ability to investigate extensive volumes of data with efficiency and precision. This has led to the development of various applications that have improved patient outcomes and reduced the workload of healthcare professionals. AI can support doctors in making more accurate diagnoses and developing personalized treatment plans. Successful examples of AI applications are outlined for a series of medical specialties like cardiology, surgery, gastroenterology, pneumology, nephrology, urology, dermatology, orthopedics, neurology, gynecology, ophthalmology, pediatrics, hematology, and critically ill patients, as well as diagnostic methods. Special reference is made to legal and ethical considerations like accuracy, informed consent, privacy issues, data security, regulatory framework, product liability, explainability, and transparency. Finally, this review closes by critically appraising AI use in clinical practice and its future perspectives. However, it is also important to approach its development and implementation cautiously to ensure ethical considerations are met.

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 · 10.3390/applbiosci3010002

Cites

188 of 188 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?

  • AI applications have proven effective in various clinical domains, such as reducing documentation burdens for clinicians, improving image interpretation in radiology, supporting intraoperative surgical guidance, and facilitating public health risk stratification.

    “AI applications have proven effective in various clinical domains, such as reducing documentation burdens for clinicians, improving image interpretation in radiology, supporting intraoperative surgical guidance, and facilitating public health risk stratification2,3.”

    From Developing a Canadian artificial intelligence medical curriculum using a Delphi study (2024) · cites this paper as [3]

    Section 3.17 (page unavailable) describes AI-assisted radiology tasks and automated completion of dental patient records, supporting image interpretation and a narrower example of reduced documentation work. Section 3.3 discusses surgical applications, but its intraoperative examples concern anesthesia and monitoring rather than demonstrated surgical guidance. The passages on risk stratification concern individual patients, not public health; the blanket claim that all four applications have proven effective overstates the review’s more qualified findings. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Few structured programs thoroughly address both the practical and ethical dimensions of AI in medicine.

    “Few structured programs thoroughly address both the practical and ethical dimensions of AI in medicine3–10.”

    From Developing a Canadian artificial intelligence medical curriculum using a Delphi study (2024) · cites this paper as [3]

    Section 4.1 calls for medical schools and graduate programs to revise their curricula, and Section 4.2 describes training in the ethical and practical use of AI. The paper does not say that few structured programs thoroughly cover both dimensions; the claim about their scarcity is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Russell, S.; Norvig, P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 4th ed.; Pearson: Bloomington, MN, USA, 2021; 1136p.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karalis, V. D.
Affiliations
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
Corresponding author
Karalis, Vangelis D.
Venue
Applied Biosciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-01-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
14-44
ISSN
2813-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390509775
Cited by
255
References
188
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 55 · 2022: 1
FWCI
24.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Biosciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
artificial intelligence in healthcare, clinical practice, diagnosis, personalized treatment, legal and ethical considerations, data privacy, data security, regulatory framework, explainability, transparency, informed consent, product liability

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