Clinician Use of an Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Clinical Information Platform

Importance: Despite growing interest in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, empirical evidence on how clinicians use these tools is limited. Objective: To characterize clinician use of an AI-enabled clinical information platform, the distribution of use across the clinical workforce, and the purpose of submitted queries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed clinicians with National Provider Identifier-verified accounts of a commonly used AI-enabled clinical information platform, OpenEvidence, from January 1, 2024, through June 30, 2026. A large language model was used to classify the clinical purpose and topic areas of a stratified random sample of 38.8 million queries. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of active users and clinical queries, the share of queries relative to representation in the national workforce, and the clinical purpose and topic of queries were examined. Results: Overall, 952 008 clinicians (58.5% female), including 556 200 physicians, submitted 271 million queries during the 2.5-year study period. Monthly active users increased from 355 in January 2024 to 703 265 in June 2026, and average monthly queries per active user rose from 18.0 to 39.5. Nurse practitioners (44.5) and physician assistants (44.5) submitted more queries per active user-month than physicians (37.1). A higher share of queries relative to the national workforce was submitted by physicians within a decade of graduation (use ratio, 2.54) and residents and fellows (1.84). Use was also higher than average among physicians specializing in oncology and hematology (use ratio, 2.00), internal medicine (1.88), and family medicine (1.80), but lower in procedural and diagnostic specialties (ophthalmology, 0.23; radiology, 0.24; orthopedics, 0.24). Most queries addressed clinical decision-making (51.9%), particularly treatment and management (33.1%), whereas diagnosis accounted for 13.9% of queries. Queries addressing topics outside physicians' own specialties ranged from 35% among oncologists and hematologists to 88% among emergency department physicians. Conclusions and Relevance: Over 2.5 years, more than 950 000 US clinicians submitted greater than 270 million queries to an AI-enabled clinical information platform. Use varied across clinician types, specialties, and career stages and was frequently for treatment decisions rather than diagnostic tasks.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JAMA
Published
2026-10-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.21868
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Clinician Use of an Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Clinical Information Platform

Mondira Ray, Travis Ian Zack, Vishal R. Patel, Jesse Burk‐Rafel et al.
JAMA
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Clinician Use of an Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Clinical Information Platform

Mondira Ray, Travis Ian Zack, Vishal R. Patel, Jesse Burk‐Rafel, Anupam Bapu Jena, Samuel G. Finlayson, Michael Liu-Hass
article en

Abstract

Importance: Despite growing interest in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, empirical evidence on how clinicians use these tools is limited. Objective: To characterize clinician use of an AI-enabled clinical information platform, the distribution of use across the clinical workforce, and the purpose of submitted queries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed clinicians with National Provider Identifier-verified accounts of a commonly used AI-enabled clinical information platform, OpenEvidence, from January 1, 2024, through June 30, 2026. A large language model was used to classify the clinical purpose and topic areas of a stratified random sample of 38.8 million queries. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of active users and clinical queries, the share of queries relative to representation in the national workforce, and the clinical purpose and topic of queries were examined. Results: Overall, 952 008 clinicians (58.5% female), including 556 200 physicians, submitted 271 million queries during the 2.5-year study period. Monthly active users increased from 355 in January 2024 to 703 265 in June 2026, and average monthly queries per active user rose from 18.0 to 39.5. Nurse practitioners (44.5) and physician assistants (44.5) submitted more queries per active user-month than physicians (37.1). A higher share of queries relative to the national workforce was submitted by physicians within a decade of graduation (use ratio, 2.54) and residents and fellows (1.84). Use was also higher than average among physicians specializing in oncology and hematology (use ratio, 2.00), internal medicine (1.88), and family medicine (1.80), but lower in procedural and diagnostic specialties (ophthalmology, 0.23; radiology, 0.24; orthopedics, 0.24). Most queries addressed clinical decision-making (51.9%), particularly treatment and management (33.1%), whereas diagnosis accounted for 13.9% of queries. Queries addressing topics outside physicians' own specialties ranged from 35% among oncologists and hematologists to 88% among emergency department physicians. Conclusions and Relevance: Over 2.5 years, more than 950 000 US clinicians submitted greater than 270 million queries to an AI-enabled clinical information platform. Use varied across clinician types, specialties, and career stages and was frequently for treatment decisions rather than diagnostic tasks.

JAMA
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US), Seattle Children's Hospital (US), National Bureau of Economic Research (US), Harvard University (US), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), New York University (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.