Citations

Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven Decision Support Systems (DSSs) promise improvements in diagnostic accuracy and clinical workflow efficiency, but their adoption is hindered by inadequate confidence calibration, limited transparency, and poor alignment with real-world decision processes, which limit clinician trust and lead to high override rates. Methods: We developed and validated a dynamic scoring framework to enhance trust in AI-generated diagnoses by integrating AI confidence scores, semantic similarity measures, and transparency weighting into the override decision process using 6689 cardiovascular cases from the MIMIC-III dataset. Override thresholds were calibrated and validated across varying transparency and confidence levels, with override rate as the primary acceptance measure. Results: The implementation of this framework reduced the override rate to 33.29%, with high-confidence predictions (90–99%) overridden at a rate of only 1.7%, and low-confidence predictions (70–79%) at a rate of 99.3%. Minimal transparency diagnoses had a 73.9% override rate compared to 49.3% for moderate transparency. Statistical analyses confirmed significant associations between confidence, transparency, and override rates (p < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings suggest that enhanced transparency and confidence calibration can substantially reduce override rates and promote clinician acceptance of AI diagnostics. Future work should focus on clinical validation to optimize patient safety, diagnostic accuracy, and efficiency.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) offers a promising strategy to harness large language models (LLMs) for delivering up-to-date, accurate clinical guidance while reducing physicians’ cognitive burden, yet its effectiveness hinges on query clarity and structure. We propose an adaptive Self-Query Retrieval (SQR) framework that integrates three refinement modules—PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time), SPICE (Setting, Population, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation), and Iterative Query Refinement (IQR)—to automatically restructure and iteratively enhance clinical questions until they meet predefined retrieval-quality thresholds. Implemented on Gemini-1.0 Pro, we benchmarked SQR using thirty postoperative rhinoplasty queries, evaluating responses for accuracy and relevance on a three-point Likert scale and for retrieval quality via precision, recall, and F1 score; statistical significance was assessed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc testing. The full SQR pipeline achieved 87% accuracy (Likert 2.4 ± 0.7) and 100% relevance (Likert 3.0 ± 0.0), significantly outperforming a non-refined RAG baseline (50% accuracy, 80% relevance; p < 0.01 and p = 0.03). Precision, recall, and F1 rose from 0.17, 0.39 and 0.24 to 0.53, 1.00, and 0.70, respectively, while PICOT-only and SPICE-only variants yielded intermediate improvements. These findings demonstrate that automated structuring and iterative enhancement of queries via SQR substantially elevate LLM-based clinical decision support, and its model-agnostic architecture enables rapid adaptation across specialties, data sources, and LLM platforms.

Abstract Background/ Objectives: Agentic AI represents a promising evolution of AI technology applied to healthcare, with systems increasingly capable of operating autonomously to achieve defined clinical goals. However, the literature lacks conceptual clarity between “AI agents” and “agentic AI”, and few studies have rigorously explored their clinical applications. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a novel systematic review addressing this gap by examining agentic AI systems in healthcare settings, characterizing their applications, features, outcomes, and limitations, and clarifying the conceptual distinctions between AI agents and agentic AI systems using predefined and objective criteria. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Google Scholar on April 6th, 2025. Studies were included if they involved AI systems in healthcare settings that demonstrated the following agentic features: autonomous operation, goal-directed behavior, and initiating action. Data on the clinical tasks achieved by the agents, key findings, features, and limitations were collected from the included studies. Screening and extraction followed PRISMA guidelines, with Risk of Bias assessed using ROBINS-I and Cochrane's Risk of Bias tools. Results Of 984 retrieved records, seven studies met the inclusion criteria, spanning domains such as emergency medicine, oncology, radiology, and rehabilitation. Multi-agent architecture was frequently used to decompose and coordinate complex workflows. Among the included studies, the AIs showed high accuracy in diagnosing cancer patients, conducting treatment plans, sending alerts, coaching messages, analysing image data, and adapting to challenging experimental scenarios. While demonstrating potential for improved efficiency, task accuracy, and patient engagement, significant limitations were noted: narrow task scope, lack of physical agency, limited clinical validation, and barriers to integration into real-world healthcare systems. Only one system had been deployed in a patient-facing trial setting. Conclusion The current literature suggests an emerging role and application of Agentic AI, holding promise with the potential to revolutionize diagnostics, triage, treatment planning, and patient management. However, real-world implementation and evaluations in the literature are limited. Future research must address critical validation, regulation, ethics, and clinical integration challenges to realize their full potential. Clear operational definitions and frameworks for evaluating agency are essential to support safe and effective deployment of these systems.

Background: Data accessibility remains a significant barrier in healthcare AI due to privacy constraints and logistical challenges. Synthetic data, which mimics real patient information while remaining both realistic and non-identifiable, offers a promising solution. Large Language Models (LLMs) create new opportunities to generate high-fidelity clinical conversations between patients and physicians. However, the value of this synthetic data depends on careful evaluation of its realism, accuracy, and practical relevance. Objective: To assess the performance of four leading LLMs: ChatGPT 4.5, ChatGPT 4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini Pro 2.5 in generating synthetic transcripts of patient–physician interactions in plastic surgery scenarios. Methods: Each model generated transcripts for ten plastic surgery scenarios. Transcripts were independently evaluated by three clinically trained raters using a seven-criterion rubric: Medical Accuracy, Realism, Persona Consistency, Fidelity, Empathy, Relevancy, and Usability. Raters were blinded to the model identity to reduce bias. Each was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, yielding 840 total evaluations. Descriptive statistics were computed, and a two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to test for differences across models and metrics. In addition, transcripts were analyzed using automated linguistic and content-based metrics. Results: All models achieved strong performance, with mean ratings exceeding 4.5 across all criteria. Gemini 2.5 Pro received mean scores (5.00 ± 0.00) in Medical Accuracy, Realism, Persona Consistency, Relevancy, and Usability. Claude 3.7 Sonnet matched the scores in Persona Consistency and Relevancy and led in Empathy (4.96 ± 0.18). ChatGPT 4.5 also achieved perfect scores in Relevancy, with high scores in Empathy (4.93 ± 0.25) and Usability (4.96 ± 0.18). ChatGPT 4o demonstrated consistently strong but slightly lower performance across most dimensions. ANOVA revealed no statistically significant differences across models (F(3, 6) = 0.85, p = 0.52). Automated analysis showed substantial variation in transcript length, style, and content richness: Gemini 2.5 Pro generated the longest and most emotionally expressive dialogues, while ChatGPT 4o produced the shortest and most concise outputs. Conclusions: Leading LLMs can generate medically accurate, emotionally appropriate synthetic dialogues suitable for educational and research use. Despite high performance, demographic homogeneity in generated patients highlights the need for improved diversity and bias mitigation in model outputs. These findings support the cautious, context-aware integration of LLM-generated dialogues into medical training, simulation, and research.

The increasing integration of large language models (LLMs) into healthcare presents significant opportunities, but also critical risks related to patient safety, accuracy, and ethical alignment. Despite these concerns, no standardized framework exists for systematically evaluating and stress testing LLM behavior in clinical decision-making. The PIEE cycle—Planning and Preparation, Information Gathering and Prompt Generation, Execution, and Evaluation—is a structured red-teaming framework developed specifically to address artificial intelligence (AI) safety risks in healthcare decision-making. PIEE enables clinicians and informatics teams to simulate adversarial prompts, including jailbreaking, social engineering, and distractor attacks, to stress-test language models in real-world clinical scenarios. Model performance is evaluated using specific metrics such as true positive and false positive rates for detecting harmful content, hallucination rates measured through adapted TruthfulQA scoring, safety and reliability assessments, bias detection via adapted BBQ benchmarks, and ethical evaluation using structured Likert-based scoring rubrics. The framework is illustrated using examples from plastic surgery, but is adaptable across specialties, and is intended for use by all medical providers, regardless of their backgrounds or familiarity with artificial intelligence. While the framework is currently conceptual and validation is ongoing, PIEE provides a practical foundation for assessing the clinical reliability and ethical robustness of LLMs in medicine.

Abstract Introduction Multiple Primary Malignancies (MPMs) are characterized by the presence of at least two distinct primary malignancies in a patient. The occurrence rate of MPMs is between 1.63% and 10.9% across articles. To our knowledge, this combination of tumours has not been documented in the existing literature. Case: A 44-year-old male, presented with complaints of abdominal pain, chronic constipation, and multiple episodes of bleeding per rectum for one month. Colonoscopy showed proliferative irregular growth at junction of recto-sigmoid colon; Biopsy showed well-differentiated adenocarcinoma. CT scan abdomen and MRI pelvis showed focal eccentric thickening at the rectosigmoid region and enhancing, partly exophytic left renal mass 3.6 x 2.2 x 2.0 cm from the lower pole, another exophytic soft tissue nodule 2.2 x 1.6 x 1.9 cm on inferior surface of body of pancreas. The biopsy of pancreatic mass was neuroendocrine tumour WHO grade 1. KRAS, BRAF, and MSI were negative. A multidisciplinary team discussion was done, and patient underwent laparoscopic-assisted low anterior resection, open left partial nephrectomy, and enucleation of the pancreatic mass in a single setting. The postoperative course remained uneventful. Histopathology showed rectosigmoid tumour: moderately differentiated mucinous adenocarcinoma, 3/19 lymph nodes positive for metastatic carcinoma. Renal tumour Histopathology: 28mm clear cell renal carcinoma. Pancreatic tumour histopathology: solid pseudopapillary neoplasm. All resection margins free of tumour. He received 4 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy and now he is on surveillance. Conclusions The occurrence of synchronous triple primary malignancies presents a complex clinical challenge and requires meticulous diagnostic evaluation, multidisciplinary collaboration, and personalized treatment strategies.

Abstract Aim To measure the textbook outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Textbook outcomes include negative surgical margin, &gt;12 Lymph nodes examined, no prolonged hospitalization &gt;14 days, no ≥ 3 days ICU treatment, no 30-day readmission or mortality, and no Clavien-Dindo complication grade≥ 3 or above. It is all or none response, if all of these parameters are met in a single patient, then the textbook outcome is met for that individual patient. Method All patients from 1st January 2014 to 31st December 2023 who were &gt;18 years old. Patients who underwent emergency surgery, those with histopathologies other than adenocarcinomas, who had pancreaticoduodenectomies for duodenal cancers were also excluded. Results Total number of patients were 269, of which 68% were male and 32% female. Mean age was 53 years, mean BMI 23.3 kg/m2. Classical Whipple’s procedure performed in 224 patients, 36 underwent Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy and 7 patients had Laparoscopic assisted Whipple’s resection. In Textbook surgical outcomes, Negative margin achieved in 251 patients, and more than 12 lymph nodes were retrieved in 249 patients. Prolonged ICU stay more than 3 days was in 11 patients. 39 patients had &gt; 14 days of hospital stay. Readmission was observed in 34 patients. 114 patients had complications out of which Clavien Dindo grade ≥3 was in 28 patients. Pancreatic fistula in 81 patients and of these, 51 patients had Grade A fistula. Complete Textbook Outcomes (TO) were achieved in 57% (153) patients. Conclusions Our center achieved high Textbook outcomes compared to international standards and depicts patient-centered care of our institution.

(1) Burn injuries demand multidisciplinary, evidence-based care, yet the extensive literature complicates timely decision making. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) synthesizes research while addressing inaccuracies in pretrained models. However, citation bias in sourcing for RAG often prioritizes highly cited studies, overlooking less-cited but valuable research. This study examines RAG’s performance in burn management, comparing citation levels to enhance evidence synthesis, reduce selection bias, and guide decisions. (2) Two burn management datasets were assembled: 30 highly cited (mean: 303) and 30 less-cited (mean: 21). The Gemini-1.0-Pro-002 RAG model addressed 30 questions, ranging from foundational principles to advanced surgical approaches. Responses were evaluated for accuracy (5-point scale), readability (Flesch–Kincaid metrics), and response time with Wilcoxon rank sum tests (p < 0.05). (3) RAG achieved comparable accuracy (4.6 vs. 4.2, p = 0.49), readability (Flesch Reading Ease: 42.8 vs. 46.5, p = 0.26; Grade Level: 9.9 vs. 9.5, p = 0.29), and response time (2.8 vs. 2.5 s, p = 0.39) for the highly and less-cited datasets. (4) Less-cited research performed similarly to highly cited sources. This equivalence broadens clinicians’ access to novel, diverse insights without sacrificing quality. As plastic surgery evolves, RAG’s inclusive approach fosters innovation, improves patient care, and reduces cognitive burden by integrating underutilized studies. Embracing RAG could propel the field toward dynamic, forward-thinking care.