AI tools for literature searches lack the transparency required for scientific rigor. The inability to document and reproduce the AI's exact methodology presents a significant challenge for research validation, as the process cannot be audited or replicated by others.
To maintain trust, AI in medical communications must be subordinate to human judgment. The ultimate guardrail is remembering that healthcare decisions are made by people, for people. AI should assist, not replace, the human communicator to prevent algorithmic control over healthcare choices.
An experiment using two leading AI models (Copilot and Gemini) to summarize 15 publications yielded contradictory and incomplete results. This demonstrates that relying on AI output without rigorous human verification can lead to dangerously misinformed conclusions in medical communications.
AI is seen not as a replacement but as a tool to handle repetitive tasks like checking abbreviations, style guides, and grammar. This automation allows human editors to focus on higher-value work: shaping the narrative, ensuring audience comprehension, and partnering on strategic messaging.
AI can efficiently redraft a communication piece, like a plain language summary, for different audiences (e.g., an adult patient vs. their teenage child). This saves time over starting from scratch but still requires expert human review to ensure accuracy and appropriateness.
A growing appetite exists within the pharmaceutical industry for AI to deliver instant results like manuscripts and insights. This "magic button" expectation overlooks the nuance required, forcing communication experts to manage expectations and emphasize AI's role as a human-augmenting tool, not a replacement.