± HEALTH Objective To evaluate the accuracy, completeness, clarity, source transparency, and readability of leading AI…+ HEALTH Background Early prediction of in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients can aid clinicians in optimiz…+ HEALTH Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, with changes in gut microbiota composition a…+ SCIENCE Fire ants (Solenopsis spp. Westwood) pose a major ecological and economic threat, mainly due to the invasive…± HEALTH Objectives The current study aimed to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of commonly utilized chatbots includin…+ HEALTH Objective Despite elevated risk for epilepsy following traumatic brain injury (TBI), there are limited tools…± HEALTH Timely and accurate diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is critical in military operation…+ HEALTH Colorectal cancer (CRC) exhibits substantial metabolic heterogeneity. This study developed a robust prognosti…
TruaceTracing the truth around AIWednesday, August 5, 2026
Subscribe
TRV-2026-0518Certified recordPeer-reviewed

Performance of artificial intelligence in the collection of patient history in general practice

Automating administrative tasks, such as compiling a patient's medical history, could help general practitioners in their daily work. AI performance has improved in recent decades, but skepticism among professionals limits its use in medical practice, due to fears of gaps and biases. This study attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of AI in recording patient histories compared to general practitioners. Cross-sectional study. SITE: Online study in France. French general practitioners recruited online. We compare…

Health · G Space — documented gain · certified 2026-07-23 · v1 · article view · machine-readable

Current reading — gain

AI collected patient histories more effectively than general practitioners during initial consultations, with stronger performance in older patients and for allergies and family history of cancer.

What this doesn’t fix

Effectiveness varied by patient and history type, with relevance and reliability not uniform across categories.

Evidence

Reader signal

How should this claim be treated?

Cite this record

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-0518, v1: “Performance of artificial intelligence in the collection of patient history in general practice.” Truvace, 2026-07-23. /record/TRV-2026-0518 (accessed at citation time). sha256 bf8e2ec650c535f4…

Calibration history

Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.

  1. Certifiedv1bf8e2ec650c5…

    Certified into the record

Verify this record
How to verify without trusting this page

Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-0518 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.