Four practical finds — May 2026
Prompt structures, hallucination defences, and 90 ready-made prompts for life sciences. Rated.
Every month I run the pipeline. Most of what it surfaces is noise. These four are not. Each one has something you can use this week — not just something worth filing away.
Ned’s Nuts: rated 1–5 🥜 for immediate utility to health communications professionals.
1. The peer-reviewed guide to prompt engineering that actually covers clinical contexts
🥜🥜🥜🥜🥜 5/5 — ESSENTIAL
Journal of Medical Internet Research | Prompt Engineering in Clinical Practice: Tutorial for Clinicians
Most prompt engineering guides are written for software developers or general-purpose AI use. This one — peer-reviewed, published in JMIR — was written for clinical environments, and it shows. It covers the four techniques that matter most: zero-shot prompting (just ask), few-shot prompting (give examples), chain-of-thought (ask the model to show its reasoning), and meta-prompting (ask the model to help you write the prompt). It also examines four dimensions specific to healthcare AI: accuracy, bias mitigation, privacy, and workflow integration.
If you only read one piece on prompting this year, make it this one. It is written for people who care about whether AI outputs can actually be trusted — which is precisely the concern that defines our work.
2. Ninety prompts built specifically for life sciences researchers and medical writers
🥜🥜🥜🥜 4/5 — STRONG
aingens.com | 90 AI Prompts For Researchers And Medical Writers
A well-organised prompt library covering the tasks that actually come up in life sciences writing: PubMed searches, abstract drafting, literature summaries, FAQs, blogs, and data visualisation descriptions. These are not generic templates with "health" bolted on — they have been built for the regulated, evidence-heavy context we work in. Worth bookmarking and working through methodically rather than cherry-picking.
The prompts are free to access. The site also offers a tool called MACg that integrates real-time PubMed access and automated citation support — worth a look if you spend significant time in the literature.
3. The hallucination problem, with real numbers attached
🥜🥜🥜🥜 4/5 — STRONG
pharmaphorum | Controlling AI hallucinations: Building evidence-based trust in clinical and scientific workflows
This April 2026 piece does something most hallucination articles do not: it puts a cost on the problem. In a 2025 cross-industry survey, 44% of organisations reported negative consequences from generative AI use, with average losses of $4.4 million per incident. In clinical and pharmaceutical environments the risks compound — AI errors in documentation do not stay in one place; they propagate.
The practical advice is clear: shift from open-ended AI use towards document-grounded approaches, where the model is anchored to your verified source materials and surfaces a citation for every claim it makes. That is how you move from checking everything to confirming what you already expect to be right.
Written by the CEO of AINGENS (yes, same company as item 2 — make of that what you will), but the argument stands independently of the commercial context.
4. The ten-chapter academic guide — for when you want to go deep
🥜🥜🥜 3/5 — DECENT
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence | A structured framework for effective and responsible GenAI chatbot prompt engineering throughout the scientific process
A comprehensive guide — ten chapters — covering how generative AI applies across the full health and medical research workflow, from literature review to knowledge translation. It is peer-reviewed and evidence-informed, and takes the methodological complexity of health research seriously rather than assuming the reader is writing marketing copy.
The reason it sits at 3/5 rather than higher is that it is long, academic, and not written for someone who wants one thing to do differently on Monday morning. But if you want to build a proper framework for how your team uses AI, this is the foundational document to work from.
Sources found via automated web search. All four are free to access. Next run: June 2026.
— Ned