EUVIMEDEuropean Health Evidence
Uhr Sources10/10 Journal Tree
Easy Demo

European Health Evidence

The European alternative to PubMed

EUVIMED is the European alternative to PubMed: a central, multilingual research platform for medicine, nursing, life sciences and healthcare. It brings together international and European literature sources, study registries, open-access full texts, citations and retraction notices in one search. Unlike pure bibliographic databases, EUVIMED supports the entire research process – from discovery and appraisal with LIVIA and CLARA to traceable evidence synthesis. European in focus, transparent, interoperable and designed for science and healthcare.

EuropeanMultilingualInteroperableTraceable

EUVIMED BETA

EUVIMED is currently in beta

EUVIMED is under continuous development. Features, data coverage and presentation may change or be temporarily incomplete.

Results are beta

Search results, classifications, summaries and AI-assisted assessments may be incomplete, delayed or incorrect.

Check original sources

Do not use EUVIMED results without verification for diagnosis, treatment or other clinical decisions. Always consult the original source and applicable guidelines.

Errors and feedback help us improve EUVIMED: info@euvimed.com

Lokaler Crossref-Datenbestand · journal-article

Health artificial intelligence is here, but are we measuring what matters?

Philip R O Payne, Thomas Kannampallil, Margaret Lozovatsky

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2026

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used in healthcare settings, yet evidence of its real-world value remains inconsistent. Current evaluation paradigms often emphasize methodological rigor and technical validity over measurable improvements in patient outcomes or system performance. Objective To examine limitations in prevailing approaches to health AI evaluation and propose a framework prioritizing outcomes-based, systems-level assessment aligned with healthcare delivery goals. Methods This perspective analyzes current evaluation practices through conceptual and ethical lenses, contrasting a deontological focus on methodological standards with a consequentialist framework emphasizing real-world impact. Results A persistent gap exists between how AI systems are evaluated and how their value is realized. Technical metrics are necessary but insufficient; meaningful evaluation requires measuring clinical and operational outcomes. Strategies include standardized outcome frameworks, evaluation infrastructure, multistakeholder governance, and aligned incentives. Conclusions Advancing health AI requires shifting from process-focused evaluation toward outcome-based assessment embedded within healthcare systems.

Bibliografischer Nachweis

Publikationsdaten

Autor:innen
Philip R O Payne, Thomas Kannampallil, Margaret Lozovatsky
Quelle
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Publikation
2026-01-01
Band / Ausgabe
Nicht angegeben
Seiten
Nicht angegeben
ISSN / ISBN
1067-5027, 1527-974X
Zitationen
0 laut Crossref
Referenzen
0 hinterlegt

Zitieren

Zitierfähiger Nachweis

Philip R O Payne, Thomas Kannampallil, Margaret Lozovatsky (2026). Health artificial intelligence is here, but are we measuring what matters?. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocag153
RIS BibTeX CSL-JSON

Kontext

Themen, Förderung und Nutzung

Lizenzhinweise: Lizenz 1