Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Infectious disease experts exchange practical knowledge through clinical discussions, but identifying relevant information across years of conversations is difficult. These discussions often contain differing opinions and emerging observations that are not yet reflected in published evidence. We present EIN-RECAP, an AI-assisted platform developed with Emerging Infections Network (EIN) experts and deployed in beta to summarize and search historical discussions. The system combines retrieval-grounded summarization, citation validation, and hybrid search while distinguishing published evidence from community experience. We evaluated summarization methods across 3,185 threads and conducted blinded expert review on a recent subset. Although a multi-agent workflow achieved stronger automated scores, experts favored a simpler generation pipeline and identified repetition, inaccuracies, and overconfident recommendations in the more complex system. This feedback motivated an ensemble that improved discussion coverage and key clinical points on nine high-disagreement threads, although retrieval relevance remained a limitation. Our findings demonstrate the importance of expert involvement in clinical AI development and show why automated evaluation alone is insufficient to guide system selection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choudhuri et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: