My thoughts echo these in so many ways. For the longest time, MD identity has been tied to being walking reference manuals, but with evidence at your fingertips, that is less and less necessary. However, background understanding of phys/pathophysm and ability to reason over information, remains more important than every. In my view, access to information is never a bad thing; it just is about how it is used. I see trainees’ learning being accelerated by rapid access to knowledge, as long as that knowledge is being actively used with the intent of self-improvement and the benefit of future patients in mind, not just to accomplish daily tasks.

I think @ZekeEmanuel and others are wrong about AI replacing physicians, but AI is already playing an important role in my clinical life. I’ve come to rely on @OpenEvidence enormously, and I believe it’s making me a better doctor. At the same time, I worry that frictionless access to clinical decision support is making my learners worse. I wrote about this for @nytopinion: nytimes.com/2026/09/25/opini…

Our collaboration with @OpenEvidence is an important step in how UTMB is responsibly integrating AI into healthcare delivery. By bringing evidence-based AI directly into clinical workflows, we can give clinicians more seamless access to trusted medical literature and clinical guidance at the point of care. This is where AI can make a meaningful difference: supporting clinicians with the right information, within the right workflow, while maintaining the security and standards our patients and teams expect. Learn more about this collaboration: utmb.us/gmk

“Medicine is a field where you don't need to squint to see the benefits of AI. It's your mom, it's your dad, it's your sister, it's your brother. And it's the doctors who will care for them in their most vulnerable moments.” Yesterday, during the UN General Assembly, we announced a partnership with @AnthropicAI to make OpenEvidence available free of charge to physicians in low- and middle-income countries, placing life-saving medical AI into the hands of physicians worldwide, regardless of the economics.

A prompt I’ve been using to stay up to date: “Act as a [insert topic] expert. Identify the most important new evidence from the last 12 months, prioritize practice changing trials, guidelines and high-quality studies, and explain what is genuinely new, what is controversial, and what should influence current clinical practice.” Staying up to date is harder than ever because of the amount of literature being published. But with new tools, it’s also becoming easier than ever. I’ve been using this prompt with @OpenEvidence and was surprised by how well it can work. Of course, this doesn’t replace reading the original papers and it’s not medical advice. But I’ve found it a helpful guide to what’s worth reading and where the important debates are. I imagine this prompt will need to evolve and change. What’s the most useful prompt you’re using right now?

Memorial Sloan Kettering opening its precision oncology data to physicians nationwide through OpenEvidence. Today's Forbes has the story. @MSKCancerCenter has spent years building the world's most detailed map of which cancer mutations respond to which treatments. Until now, you had to be treated at MSK to benefit from it. Soon, an oncologist in a small practice in Montana will see the same evidence as a subspecialist in Manhattan, at the moment it matters, for the patient in front of them. More patients getting the right treatment the first time, wherever they live. Read full article here forbes.com/sites/innovationr…