Let me make a few important qualifications: 1. First and foremost, the COIs: One of the authors is the CEO of Curai Health, which unsurprisingly is a AI physician startup. Another author is the investor in Curai Health. 2. "Published" is actually an overestimation of the qualitative threshold of this "review": This is, in fact and contrary to the paper's claim, NOT a "review" or "of all published articles on AI in medicine since Jan 1 2024." There is no review methodology, databases searched, search queries/strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, PRISMA structure, risk-of-bias assessments, preregistered protocol, or really anything scientific. 3. Cherry-picked epistemology: When a paper showed physicians or physicians + AI > AI, they rationalize it as "old LLM model" or "sub-optimal prompting." Vice versa is, of course, evidence AI > physician. Its a unidirectional epistemic criteria. 4. Endpoints are proxies rather than real clinical outcomes: Correct diagnosis/appropriate test/guide-line concordant treatment/simulated cost/top-1 diagnosis vs. mortality rate/re-hospitalization rate/adverse drug events/morbidity/healthcare utilization rate 5. The review is misleading: they cite an RCT with their claim that "AI is better at chronic management for conditions including diabetes" but in that RCT before the AI was activated, each patient's diabetes clinician selected the protocol... So in other words, it was a human-based AI management 6. The review is again misleading, and possibly confused: They cite a meta-analysis with their claim that "When AI is better than humans, adding a human can actually make AI performance worse." This paper covered 106 experiments, of which only about 20 were medicine related. And here's the kicker... a human always signed off on the AI-generated medical plans. tl;dr: Dad funds son's health startup and write an opinion piece. Embarrassingly low scientific comprehension by the authors but they're the equivalent of 'non-technical' in this domain, as they like to say in Silicon Valley, so we'll give them a pass. But, @JAMA_current do better? I get it's a perspective but like... at least make sure the studies cited say what the perspective cites them for? @CuraiHQ if need some consulting before waging war against physicians, I am open for a curbside peer-review next time