How Are Clinicians Utilizing Artificial Intelligence to Answer Medical Questions?

At the turn of the century, Dr. John Ely and colleagues observed 103 family physicians for two half-day clinical sessions and analyzed 1,101 questions that arose during patient care​. Physicians spent an average of less than 2 minutes seeking answers to 399 (36%) clinical questions. Nearly all information sources were colleagues or printed materials; only 10 times did physicians consult a computer. In contrast, a 2022 study​ of 31 family and other generalist physicians found that 93% of clinical questions were answerable with online resources, mostly using summaries of preappraised and synthesized evidence. However, for 32% of questions it took more than 5 minutes to retrieve an answer, too slow to be useful at the point of care.

Clinicians can use artificial intelligence platforms such as Open Evidence (OE) to answer questions more efficiently. (Full disclosure: OE partners with the American Academy of Family Physicians to surface content from American Family Physician in responses to queries.) A 2025 retrospective study​ evaluated OE’s performance in providing evidence-based recommendations for 5 primary care patients with common chronic conditions (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, depression, and obesity). Physician reviewers rated OE’s recommendations highly for clarity, relevance, and evidence support, but noted that these generally reinforced physician plans rather than modifying them. Earlier this year, OE added strength of evidence ratings to answers​, ranging from A (strong) to D (minimal).

In a descriptive study in JAMA​, Dr. Vishal Patel and colleagues reported the content of more than 270 million queries submitted to OE by more than 950,000 US clinicians (including 556,200 physicians) from January 2024 to June 2026. On average, nurse practitioners and physician assistants submitted more queries per month than physicians. Residents, fellows, and early career physicians used OE more frequently than physicians with more than 10 years in practice.

Across medical specialties, hematologist-oncologists, internists, and family physicians submitted the most queries relative to their proportions in the workforce. Large numbers of queries were directed outside of a physician’s specialty; for example, 70% of queries from surgeons involved nonsurgical topics. Although the majority of queries (51.9%) were tied to a specific patient care decision, other purposes included general clinical knowledge, retrieval of research studies or guidelines, administrative tasks (eg, insurance appeal letters, patient education), teaching materials, and professional development.

An accompanying editorial​ highlighted some of the study’s limitations and directions for future research:

“Patel and colleagues did not evaluate the quality of generated responses to queries, clinicians’ assessments of their accuracy or usefulness, or how the information was applied to or affected patient care. The study also could not distinguish use during clinical encounters from “precharting” preparation or general educational efforts. Returning users suggest perceived value, but engagement is not evidence of patient benefit.”

It has never been easier for clinicians to answer questions that come up at the point of care. As always, the relevance and validity of retrieved information​ determines its usefulness, potential to change practice, and likelihood of improving patient-oriented outcomes.