Patel Niket, Grewal Harpreet, Buddhavarapu Venkata, Dhillon Gagandeep
Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA.
Radiology, Florida State University College of Medicine, Pensacola, USA.
Cureus. 2025 Jan 3;17(1):e76867. doi: 10.7759/cureus.76867. eCollection 2025 Jan.
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare has introduced tools that improve medical education and clinical practice. OpenEvidence is an example, providing real-time synthesis and access to medical literature, particularly for medical students during clinical rotations. By enabling efficient searches for clinical guidelines, diagnostic criteria, and therapeutic approaches, it streamlines decision-making and study preparation. Its ability to present recent publications and highlight less commonly discussed treatments supports evidence-based learning. Despite these strengths, OpenEvidence has limitations. It struggles with targeted searches for specific articles, authors, or journals and operates through an opaque curation process. Compared to ChatGPT, which offers conversational interactivity, and UpToDate, known for its comprehensive, CME-accredited content, OpenEvidence lacks certain advanced features. However, its user-friendly design and focus on clinical evidence make it a valuable, accessible alternative. This editorial critically examines OpenEvidence's capabilities and limitations, comparing it with established tools. It emphasizes the need for greater transparency, broader evidence integration, and enhanced functionality to maximize its impact. Addressing these challenges could improve OpenEvidence's utility, supporting a more effective, evidence-based approach to medical education and clinical practice.
将人工智能(AI)整合到医疗保健领域带来了一些工具,这些工具改善了医学教育和临床实践。OpenEvidence就是一个例子,它提供实时文献综述并能获取医学文献,特别是对于临床实习期间的医学生。通过能够高效搜索临床指南、诊断标准和治疗方法,它简化了决策过程和学习准备工作。它呈现近期出版物并突出较少被讨论的治疗方法的能力支持了基于证据的学习。尽管有这些优点,OpenEvidence也有局限性。它在针对特定文章、作者或期刊进行有针对性的搜索方面存在困难,并且通过一个不透明的筛选过程运行。与提供对话交互性的ChatGPT以及以其全面的、经继续医学教育(CME)认证的内容而闻名的UpToDate相比,OpenEvidence缺乏某些高级功能。然而,其用户友好的设计以及对临床证据的关注使其成为一个有价值的、易于使用的替代方案。这篇社论批判性地审视了OpenEvidence的能力和局限性,并将其与现有工具进行了比较。它强调需要提高透明度、更广泛地整合证据以及增强功能,以最大限度地发挥其影响。应对这些挑战可以提高OpenEvidence的效用,支持采用更有效、基于证据的方法进行医学教育和临床实践。