Artificial Intelligence in Allied Health Practice: Current Evidence, Emerging Applications, And Implications for Patient Safety

Vol 9 No 10 (2026): Volume 09 Issue 10 October 2026

Article Date Published : 6 October 2026 | Page No.: 5264-5272 | Google Scholar | Crossref doi for this article

Abstract :

Artificial intelligence (AI) is moving from experimental research into routine healthcare workflows, including diagnostic support, clinical documentation, rehabilitation, laboratory medicine, medical imaging, patient education, and service management. Allied health professionals are increasingly involved in these AI-enabled pathways, yet evidence and implementation guidance are often concentrated in physician-led specialties. This narrative review synthesises current evidence on the use of AI across allied health practice and examines implications for patient safety, professional accountability, education, and health equity. Literature from peer-reviewed journals and authoritative guidance was considered, with emphasis on clinical applications, implementation barriers, bias, explainability, human-AI interaction, and generative AI. Current evidence supports potential benefits such as workflow support, image interpretation, pattern recognition, personalised rehabilitation, laboratory decision support, documentation assistance, and improved access to health information. However, technical performance alone does not establish clinical effectiveness or safety. Dataset shift, hidden bias, automation bias, inaccurate generated content, privacy risks, poor interoperability, insufficient local validation, and unclear responsibility can introduce new failure modes. Safe adoption should include a defined intended use, representative validation, transparent performance monitoring, user training, incident reporting, privacy safeguards, human oversight, and periodic re-evaluation after deployment. The review concludes that AI has meaningful potential across allied health practice, but sustainable adoption depends on evidence-based governance and continuous patient-safety monitoring rather than technology adoption alone.

Keywords :

allied health, Artificial Intelligence, clinical decision support, digital health, Generative AI, healthcare professionals., laboratory medicine, Machine learning, Patient Safety, rehabilitation

References :

  1. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25:44-56. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7.
  2. Davenport T, Kalakota R. The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future Healthc J. 2019;6:94-98. doi:10.7861/futurehosp.6-2-94.
  3. Yu KH, Beam AL, Kohane IS. Artificial intelligence in healthcare. Nat Biomed Eng. 2018;2:719-731. doi:10.1038/s41551-018-0305-z.
  4. Rajpurkar P, Irvin J, Zhu K, et al. CheXNet: radiologist-level pneumonia detection on chest X-rays with deep learning. arXiv. 2017. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1711.05225.
  5. Esteva A, Kuprel B, Novoa RA, et al. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature. 2017;542:115-118. doi:10.1038/nature21056.
  6. Kermany DS, Goldbaum M, Cai W, et al. Identifying medical diagnoses and treatable diseases by image-based deep learning. Cell. 2018;172:1122-1131.e9. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.010.
  7. McKinney SM, Sieniek M, Godbole V, et al. International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature. 2020;577:89-94. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1799-6.
  8. Esteva A, Chou K, Yeung S, et al. Deep learning-enabled medical computer vision. NPJ Digit Med. 2021;4:5. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-00376-2.
  9. Nagendran M, Chen Y, Lovejoy CA, et al. Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies. BMJ. 2020;368:m689. doi:10.1136/bmj.m689.
  10. Kelly CJ, Karthikesalingam A, Suleyman M, Corrado G, King D. Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Med. 2019;17:195. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2.
  11. Wiens J, Saria S, Sendak M, et al. Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care. Nat Med. 2019;25:1337-1340. doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0548-6.
  12. Yu KH, Kohane IS. Framing the challenges of AI in medicine. BMJ. 2019;363:k4674. doi:10.1136/bmj.k4674.
  13. World Health Organization. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. Geneva: WHO; 2021.
  14. World Health Organization. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: guidance on large multi-modal models. Geneva: WHO; 2025.
  15. Ahmad Z, Rahim S, Zubair M, Abdul-Ghafar J. Artificial intelligence in medicine, current applications and future role with special emphasis on its potential and promise in pathology. Diagn Pathol. 2021;16:24. doi:10.1186/s13000-021-01085-4.
  16. Albahra S, Gorbett T, Robertson S, et al. Artificial intelligence and machine learning overview in pathology & laboratory medicine: a general review of data preprocessing and basic supervised concepts. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2023;40:71-87. doi:10.1053/j.semdp.2023.02.002.
  17. Baron JM. Artificial Intelligence in the Clinical Laboratory: An Overview with Frequently Asked Questions. Clin Lab Med. 2023;43:1-16. doi:10.1016/j.cll.2022.09.002.
  18. Chen Z, et al. Artificial intelligence in anatomical pathology: building a strong foundation for precision medicine. Hum Pathol. 2022;127:1-10. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2022.07.008.
  19. Sumner J, Lim HW, Chong LS, Bundele A, Mukhopadhyay A, Kayambu G. Artificial intelligence in physical rehabilitation: A systematic review. Artif Intell Med. 2023;146:102693. doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2023.102693.
  20. Wang L, Wan Z, Ni C, et al. Applications and concerns of ChatGPT and other conversational large language models in health care: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e22769. doi:10.2196/22769.
  21. Pantanowitz J, Manko CD, Pantanowitz L, Rashidi HH. Synthetic data and its utility in pathology and laboratory medicine. Lab Invest. 2024;104(8):102095. doi:10.1016/j.labinv.2024.102095.
  22. Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, Mullainathan S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science. 2019;366:447-453. doi:10.1126/science.aax2342.
  23. Chen RJ, et al. Algorithmic fairness in artificial intelligence for medicine and healthcare. Nat Biomed Eng. 2023;7:719-742. doi:10.1038/s41551-023-01056-8.
  24. Ueda D, Kakinuma T, Fujita S, Kamagata K, Fushimi Y, Ito R, et al. Fairness of artificial intelligence in healthcare: review and recommendations. Jpn J Radiol. 2024;42(1):3-15. doi:10.1007/s11604-023-01474-3.
  25. Sallam M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11:887. doi:10.3390/healthcare11060887.
  26. Amann J, Blasimme A, Vayena E, Frey D, Madai VI. Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: a multidisciplinary perspective. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020;20:310. doi:10.1186/s12911-020-01332-6.
  27. Freyer N, Groß D, Lipprandt M. The ethical requirement of explainability for AI-DSS in healthcare: a systematic review of reasons. BMC Med Ethics. 2024;25:104. doi:10.1186/s12910-024-01103-2.
  28. Liu X, Rivera SC, Moher D, Calvert MJ, Denniston AK; SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group. Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension. Nat Med. 2020;26:1364-1374. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1034-x.
  29. Rivera SC, Liu X, Chan AW, Denniston AK, Calvert MJ; SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group. Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI extension. Nat Med. 2020;26:1351-1363. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1037-7.
  30. Vasey B, Nagendran M, Campbell B, et al. Reporting guideline for the early-stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI. Nat Med. 2022;28:924-933. doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01772-9.
  31. Bahner JE, Hüper AD, Manzey D. Misuse of decision support in medical practice: the role of automation bias. J Med Syst. 2017;41:58. doi:10.1007/s10916-017-0737-8.
  32. Silva GFDS, et al. Strategies for detecting and mitigating dataset shift in machine learning for health predictions: A systematic review. J Biomed Inform. 2025;104902. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2025.104902.
  33. Kaelin VC, Nilsson I, Lindgren H. Occupational therapy in the space of artificial intelligence: ethical considerations and human-centered efforts. Scand J Occup Ther. 2024;31(1):2421355. doi:10.1080/11038128.2024.2421355.
  34. Liu GS, Jovanovic N, Sung CK, Doyle PC. A scoping review of artificial intelligence detection of voice pathology: challenges and opportunities. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024. doi:10.1002/ohn.809.
  35. Leung A, et al. Artificial intelligence in clinical nutrition and dietetics: a brief overview of current evidence. Nutr Clin Pract. 2024. doi:10.1002/ncp.11150.
  36. World Health Organization. Regulatory considerations on artificial intelligence for health. Geneva: WHO; 2023. ISBN: 978-92-4-007887-1.

How to Cite :

Artificial Intelligence in Allied Health Practice: Current Evidence, Emerging Applications, And Implications for Patient Safety. Sakthivel Ramya, Ragul Baskaran, Loganayaki Somasundaram, 9(10), 5264-5272. Retrieved from https://ijcsrr.org/single-view/?id=27684&pid=27658

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Sakthivel Ramya, Ragul Baskaran, Loganayaki Somasundaram,

View

15

Citation

Downloads

Article Details