PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 12, 2026PLoS ONE19 citationsOpen Access

Artificial intelligence agents in healthcare research: A scoping review

BNBasile NjeiYAYazan A. Al-AjlouniUKUlrick Sidney Kanmounye

Key Points

  • This research aims to assess the current landscape of AI agents in healthcare and identify gaps in translational research.
  • Conducted a scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines.
  • Performed literature searches on PubMed, Web of Science, arXiv, and medRxiv.
  • Identified and reviewed 1,070 records, ultimately including 43 studies.
  • Categorized systems into 8 conversational agents, 17 workflow assistants, and 18 decision support agents.
  • Core mechanisms involved external tool use for grounding and iterative self-correction.
  • Most evaluations occurred in simulated environments, with limited real-world clinical trials.

Abstract

Introduction Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents are rapidly transforming healthcare delivery, enabling real-time decision support and sophisticated patient interaction at scale. However, the scientific landscape of this rapidly growing, multidisciplinary field remains fragmented, with technical innovation outpacing translational research and the establishment of ethical governance frameworks. To address this gap, we conducted a comprehensive scoping review analysis of AI agent research in healthcare. Methods We followed scoping review methodology (PRISMA-ScR guidelines). Searches across PubMed, Web of Science, arXiv, and medRxiv were conducted from January 2015 to December 7, 2025. Results The search identified 1,070 records, of which 43 studies were ultimately included after full-text review. Of these 43 included studies, 36 were published in 2025. Systems were categorized into 8 conversational agents, 17 workflow/automation assistants, and 18 multimodal decision support agents. The core mechanism across all archetypes was external tool use (e.g., retrieval-augmented generation or code execution) for grounding and iterative self-correction (e.g., multi-agent debate or self-debugging loops) for refinement. Evaluation settings were predominantly simulated environments or laboratory studies, with few clinical pilots or real-world deployments. Primary reported outcomes focused on process measures (efficiency) and diagnostic accuracy; clinical outcomes and safety endpoints were rarely addressed. Conclusion Agentic AI systems are rapidly evolving from conceptual frameworks to functional prototypes, primarily targeting complex decision-making and workflow automation. While agentic capabilities are increasingly integrated, research heavily favors simulated evaluations. Future research must prioritize clinical trials and the robust assessment of safety, usability, and clinical efficacy before widespread adoption.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Njei et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/698d6e925be6419ac0d546a0https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342182
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1From data silos to insights: the PRINCE multi-agent knowledge engine for preclinical drug development2025 · 4 citations
  2. 2A multimodal generative AI copilot for human pathology2024 · 431 citations
  3. 3Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework2005 · 37,152 citations
  4. 4AI-Based EMG Reporting: A Randomized Controlled Trial2025 · 17 citations
  5. 5Conversational AI agent for precision oncology: AI-HOPE-WNT integrates clinical and genomic data to investigate WNT pathway dysregulation in colorectal cancer2025 · 13 citations