The AI Clinic · Issue 019AI agents & access
Decide what it can touch.
AI agents can now work on your computer. Keep them on the task.
Two kinds of AI news this week. One is about what AI agents can now do on your computer. The other is about what AI found buried in the software your clinic website probably runs on. Both come back to one plain question. What should these tools be allowed to touch?
- Desktop AI agents like Claude Cowork and ChatGPT Work can now open files and apps on your computer, and a Lancet Digital Health comment asks how to keep them inside the clinical task.
- Researchers using frontier AI models found serious PHP flaws affecting WordPress and other sites, and the PHP project shipped emergency patches on Oct. 21.
- Surgeons rated ChatGPT's answers to 70 knee replacement questions near 5 out of 5, but scores bunched at the ceiling and the authors still recommend clinician review.
The Big Story
AI agents can now work on your computer. Keep them on the task.
General-purpose AI agents like ChatGPT Work, ChatGPT Codex, Claude Cowork, and Claude Code can now work through files and apps on your own computer. You give one a request, it picks its own steps, and it uses software tools to get the job done: find a document, update a spreadsheet, draft a message for you to review.
A new comment in The Lancet Digital Health from Mahmud Omar, Eyal Klang, and Girish Nadkarni (Mount Sinai and Beth Israel Deaconess) asks the obvious healthcare question. How do you keep an agent inside the clinical task it was given?
Mark's read: This is a comment piece, not a study, so take it as a warning rather than evidence. The warning is fair, though. A chatbot only sees what you paste into it. An agent on your desktop can see whatever your login can see, and in a lot of small clinics that's a shared drive full of intake forms. I use these tools every day and I like them. I also run them in folders that hold nothing I'd be upset to see in the wrong place. Start there.
The Rounds
Epic is opening its AI agents to outside software
At its Open@Epic developer conference on Oct. 21-22, Epic said outside developers will be able to build Connectors that link their software to Agent Factory, its platform for building and running AI agents. Early-adopter customers could start as soon as next month, and developers can start building in the first quarter of next year. Epic also said consumer chatbots are adding real traffic to health systems' records. And a Costco pharmacy leader said its pharmacies get about 1,000 calls a day from AI agents asking about controlled substances.
Mark's read: Most outpatient clinics aren't on Epic, but your referral sources and hospital partners often are. Expect more AI tools reading and sending the referral and records data you depend on. That Costco number is the part I can't stop thinking about. A thousand bot calls a day is what you get when someone builds an agent without asking the pharmacist first. Ask the person who answers the phone before you build the bot.
For Owners
Ask your web person about PHP this week
Researchers using frontier AI models found serious flaws in PHP, the software behind a huge share of the web, including WordPress, Drupal, and Joomla sites. Security firm Wiz showed an unpatched site can be taken over remotely with no login, and that attackers can read passwords and keys straight from the server's memory. Wiz says every PHP version back to 5.4 is affected. The PHP project shipped emergency patches on Oct. 21.
Mark's read: If your clinic site runs on WordPress, this is you. So is the booking or intake plugin on that site. You don't need to follow the technical detail. Send one email to whoever hosts or built your site and ask: has the October PHP security update been applied, yes or no? Get the yes in writing. The same AI that found this bug makes it cheaper for someone else to use it.
In the Clinic
ChatGPT aced a knee replacement quiz. Read the fine print.
A team at the Medical University of Warsaw had three arthroplasty surgeons rate ChatGPT's answers to 70 patient questions about total knee replacement, including 20 about fast-track recovery (early walking, early discharge, fewer opioids, fewer drains and catheters). Average scores sat near 5 out of 5 for accuracy, completeness, safety, and readability. Every fast-track answer got a perfect score from every rater.
Mark's read: When every score is a 5, the ruler is too short. The authors say as much. Scores bunched at the ceiling, the fast-track questions were written by the investigators and picked differently, and they still recommend clinician review for protocol-specific and safety advice. Your TKA patients are asking a chatbot before they ask you, and the general answers are probably decent. The gap is your protocol. ChatGPT doesn't know your surgeon's weight-bearing orders or your patient's precautions. Ask what they've read, then fill in the parts that are specific to them.
In the Classroom
A course bot that only knows the course
Bar-Ilan University in Israel piloted an AI agent on its Moodle site across 71 courses and about 2,400 students. It answers only from material faculty uploaded: recorded lectures, transcripts, slides, and articles. Students can search it, get summaries, and quiz themselves, and it's expanding to 100 more courses this fall. One lecturer spent real time rewriting and expanding his materials, then tested the answers before he trusted it. His class average went up three points, which he admits could just be a stronger group.
Mark's read: This is a Microsoft feature story, so read it as the company telling its own story, not a study. The useful detail is the lecturer's prep work. Grounding a bot in your course only helps if the materials can teach without you in the room. For DPT programs where students miss lectures for clinicals, that's the real project. The bot is the easy part.
Academic Corner
Can an LLM grade a clinical summary statement?
A team at Charité Berlin ran 122 expert-scored summary statements from virtual patient cases through four models (Claude, GPT-4o, Mistral Large, and Mistral 7B), five times each, under four prompting styles. The three large models gave nearly the same scores from run to run. Agreement with the human experts was best when the prompt included a few graded examples and asked for step-by-step reasoning, topping out at 77% accuracy for Mistral Large and 71% for Claude. The models did better on yes-or-no items like factual accuracy than on the three-level judgments about reasoning quality.
Mark's read: Consistent isn't the same as right. A grader that gives you the same score every time can still disagree with your faculty on a good share of statements, and it struggled most on the reasoning parts we care about. That's fine for practice feedback on low-stakes reps, which is what the authors propose. Give it your rubric and a few graded examples. Keep the grades that count with a human.
Try This
Give your AI agent a sandbox before it gets your desktop
Before you let a desktop agent loose on a clinic computer, make it a folder of its own. Put in only the files it needs for one job, with no patient records and no shared drive. Point the agent at that folder and nothing else, and turn on whatever setting makes it ask before it sends, deletes, or changes anything. Then run one real task, like cleaning up next month's staff schedule, and watch what it reaches for. If it asks for more access than the job needs, you've learned something about the tool before it learned anything about your patients.
The last word
Has anyone on your team already set up one of these agents on a work computer? Hit reply and tell me what you let it touch.
Get the next issue.
One email a week. The AI that matters for clinical work, in plain language.