Vetted by NeuralPress's Multi-Agent Verifier for strict factual validity and event relevance. Our compliance engine cross-checks and filters search results to ensure zero false correlations or misleading content.
Adoption of AI Tools in Health Information
Comparison of patient usage and professional sentiment regarding AI in medicine.
Primary Sources
Hospitals Are Quietly Rolling Out AI For Patients — But Doctors Are Not ...
Healthcare systems across the U.S. are launching artificial intelligence chatbots to help patients access medical guidance faster, even as physicians remain divided over the risks and benefits, Newsweek reported on Sunday.Hartford HealthCare recently launched Patient GPT, built by clinical AI company K Health, for patients in Connecticut. California-based Sutter Health and Reid Health, which serves Indiana and Ohio, have rolled out Emmie, built by healthcare software company Epic. Both platforms access patients’ medical records and operate within HIPAA-protected environments, setting them apart from consumer chatbots.Allon Bloch, CEO of K Health, told Newsweek that Patient GPT allows patients to book a doctor’s appointment 24/7, with some appointments available in as little as 15 minutes. “A doctor might take 20 minutes just to read through a medical record,” Bloch said. “Now it’s all there and ready for the doctor.”Demand Is Outpacing the SystemThe rollout comes as hospital waiting times worsen. Patients now wait a month on average to see a doctor, a 19% increase from 2022, according to a 2025 AMN Healthcare report. About 25% of Americans have already used an AI tool for health information, according to a Gallup poll.Some surveys suggest lower-income groups are more likely to turn to AI tools when cost or access to doctors is a barrier, and some patients report delaying or skipping visits after receiving AI-generated guidance.Doctors Raise The Bar On MonitoringNigam Shah, professor of Medicine at Stanford University, told Newsweek the tools were a “net positive” but cautioned that questions remained about how effectively they would be monitored.Suchi Saria, professor of computer science and health policy at Johns Hopkins University, told Newsweek that “the same technology can either meaningfully improve care or quietly introduce risk, depending on how rigorously it’s built, validated, and monitored.”The use of AI chatbots in hospitals is expanding alongside ongoing evaluations of their accuracy, regulatory compliance, and role within existing healthcare systems.Disclaimer: This content was produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.Photo: PeopleImages.com – Yuri A via ShuttestockMarket News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs© 2026 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.
AI in healthcare: A supportive role, not a substitute for doctors
A new study has found that while large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of improving how medical information is communicated, they still fall short of matching physicians in accuracy, precision, and clinical reliability. The research highlights a growing divide between how AI performs in delivering empathetic, readable responses and how it performs in preserving medical correctness and alignment with expert knowledge. Published as "Can 'AI' be a Doctor? A Study of Empathy, Readability, and Alignment in Clinical LLMs" on arXiv, the study detailed evaluations to date of how AI systems compare to human doctors across multiple dimensions of healthcare communication, including emotional tone, clarity, semantic fidelity, and stakeholder trust. AI enhances empathy and readability but alters clinical tone The research reveals that LLMs consistently produce responses that are more emotionally expressive and supportive than those written by physicians. In both structured medical knowledge datasets and real-world patient consultation scenarios, AI systems tend to amplify affiliative emotions such as care and reassurance. However, this increase in emotional tone does not necessarily align with clinical communication standards. Physicians typically adopt a balanced approach that combines clarity, neutrality, and appropriate levels of reassurance without overstating certainty or minimizing risk. AI systems, by contrast, often shift toward overly supportive language, which may appear comforting but risks distorting the intended tone of medical advice. The study finds that this divergence is particularly evident when models operate without guidance. Baseline AI responses frequently deviate from physician norms, especially in formal medical contexts where neutrality is critical. While empathy prompting can adjust tone toward more appropriate levels, it does not fully replicate the nuanced balance achieved by human clinicians. This distinction highlights a key limitation of current AI systems: they can simulate empathy but lack the contextual judgment required to calibrate emotional expression appropriately. In healthcare, where communication must carefully balance reassurance with accuracy, this gap has significant implications. Readability gains depend on deliberate prompting, not default performance The finding challenges the assumption that AI naturally produces clearer and more accessible medical explanations. In practice, the researchers found that base...
Hospitals roll out AI chatbots as doctors voice caution - MSN
Hospitals across the U.S. are introducing AI-powered chatbots integrated with patient medical records to answer health questions and speed up appointments, while doctors remain split over their ...
Health Care's AI Disruption, Ready or Not - KFF
The AI revolution is already here — but what does it mean for patients, clinicians, and health care industry leaders? Eric Larsen, veteran health care strategist and longtime advisor to CEOs ...
