Beyond the Algorithm: Why MedComms Still Need Human Pulse

In an industry, now shaped by artificial intelligence (AI)-driven efficiencies and machine-generated drafts, it's natural to wonder: Is the medical communicator (MedComm) becoming obsolete?

- 

After all, algorithms can analyse thousands of clinical studies in minutes, format citations instantly, and draft documents that read, at first glance, like they were written by seasoned professionals. Having witnessed the journey of MedComms from paper-based literature reviews to AI-assisted content creation, technology has revolutionised our processes but it has not replaced our purpose.

The digital transformation of medical communications has been both swift and sweeping. We've moved from highlighters and physical journals to citation managers, machine learning platforms, and natural language generation tools. Modern medical writers now rely on tools that can auto-generate patient narratives or identify trends in vast datasets.

Efficiency gains have been significant. Manuscripts that used to take weeks now get drafted in days. Errors in formatting or consistency have plummeted. Compliance checks that once required multiple rounds of human review are now semi-automated and algorithmically verified.

For today's writers, especially those entering the field, these tools aren't novelties—they're expectations. But while tech has lifted the burden of many repetitive tasks, it has not replaced the cognitive load of storytelling, judgement, or ethical decision-making.

Where Tech Falls Short

When we ask an AI tool to summarise a meta-analysis on anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients, the algorithm does its job: it lists relative risks, confidence intervals, and safety outcomes with impeccable structure and formatting.