Summarizing research is doctors' most common use of AI, and hospitals' fastest-growing uses are billing and scheduling. Trials find modest time savings but no better patient outcomes yet, and one study links routine AI use to weaker skills without it.
01
nearly four in ten
In the AMA's survey of US physicians in January and February 2026, summaries of medical research and standards of care were the most common AI use in practice, used by nearly four in ten physicians who answered the question.
Who was asked: 1,692 US physicians
Self-reported, in a voluntary survey.
American Medical Association, 2026 Physician Survey on Augmented Intelligence · January 15 to February 2, 2026 · Grade C
02
36% to 61%
Among US non-federal acute care hospitals that used predictive AI, the share using it to simplify or automate billing rose from 36% to 61% between 2023 and 2024, and the share using it to facilitate scheduling from 51% to 67%, the fastest-growing uses.
Who was asked: US non-federal acute care hospitals that used any predictive AI
Predictive models, such as forecasting no-shows, not chatbots or generative AI.
Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy / ONC (US HHS), Hospital Trends in the Use, Evaluation, and Governance of Predictive AI, 2023-2024 (Data Brief No. 80) · 2025-09 · Grade A
03
9.5%
In a randomized trial of 238 outpatient physicians at UCLA Health from November 2024 to January 2025, those given the Nabla AI scribe cut their time writing each note by 9.5% compared with usual care, while the 1.7% drop for those given Microsoft's DAX Copilot was not significant.
Who was asked: 238 outpatient physicians at UCLA Health
The health-record log misses time spent editing drafts inside the scribe apps, so savings may be overstated.
NEJM AI (Lukac et al., UCLA Health), Ambient AI Scribes in Clinical Practice: A Randomized Trial · November 2024 to January 2025 · Grade A
04
2.2%
In a cluster-randomized trial in 16 primary-care clinics in Kenya from April to July 2025 (9,691 patients, 103 clinical officers), an AI assistant built into the medical record didn't reduce treatment failure within 14 days: 2.2% of patients with it against 2.0% without, not a significant difference.
Who was asked: 9,691 patients seen by 103 clinical officers
The trial could detect only a large effect; clinicians' notes and treatment plans did improve.
Disclosure: Penda Health ran the clinics, and two of the authors hold its stock options; OpenAI gave in-kind support for the tool.
Nature Medicine (Agweyu, Mwaniki, Menon et al.), Generative AI-enabled clinical decision support system in primary care: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial · April 22 to July 16, 2025 · Grade A
05
28.4% to 22.4%
At four endoscopy centres in Poland, the share of standard colonoscopies, done without AI, in which doctors found at least one adenoma (a precancerous polyp) fell from 28.4% to 22.4% between the three months before AI tools arrived at the end of 2021 and the three months after (1,443 patients; an observational study).
Who was asked: 1,443 patients who had standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy
Observational, before and after: an association, not proof that AI caused the drop.
The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology (Budzyń et al.), authors' accepted manuscript in the University of Warwick's repository, Endoscopist de-skilling risk after exposure to artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: a multicenter observational study · September 2021 to March 2022 · Grade B