Generative AI as Third Agent: Large Language Models and the Transformation of the Clinician-Patient Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care has significant implications for patient-clinician interactions. Practical and ethical challenges have emerged with the adoption of large language models (LLMs) that respond to prompts from clinicians, patients, and caregivers. With an emphasis on patient experience, this paper examines the potential of LLMs to act as facilitators, interrupters, or both in patient-clinician relationships. Drawing on our experiences as patient advocates, computer scientists, and physician informaticists working to improve data exchange and patient experience, we examine how LLMs might enhance patient engagement, support triage, and inform clinical decision-making. While affirming LLMs as a tool enabling the rise of the "AI patient," we also explore concerns surrounding data privacy, algorithmic bias, moral injury, and the erosion of human connection. To help navigate these tensions, we outline a conceptual framework that anticipates the role and impact of LLMs in patient-clinician dynamics and propose key areas for future inquiry. Realizing the potential of LLMs requires careful consideration of which aspects of the patient-clinician relationship must remain distinctly human and why, even when LLMs offer plausible substitutes. This inquiry should draw on ethics and philosophy, aligned with AI imperatives such as patient-centered design and transparency, and shaped through collaboration between technologists, health care providers, and patient communities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".