Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37548965›Full record

ArticleJAMA2023

Creation and Adoption of Large Language Models in Medicine.

Nigam H Shah, David Entwistle, Michael A Pfeffer

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06661590 (Comparative Analysis Between Artificial Intelligence vs. Human Generated Nutrition Messages for Colorectal Cancer Survivors), which is not on this map. Cited by 252 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
252citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06661590 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Analysis Between Artificial Intelligence vs. Human Generated Nutrition Messages for Colorectal Cancer Survivors

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MinnesotaRan2024 to 2025Enrolled6ConditionsNo Disease State or ConditionArmsNutritional Messaging
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

252 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 377 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Small language models in medicine.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

192 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nigam H ShahStanford Health Care, Palo Alto, California.
David EntwistleStanford Health Care, Palo Alto, California.
Michael A PfefferStanford Health Care, Palo Alto, California.
Stanford Health Care · USStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: There is increased interest in and potential benefits from using large language models (LLMs) in medicine. However, by simply wondering how the LLMs and the applications powered by them will reshape medicine instead of getting actively involved, the agency in shaping how these tools can be used in medicine is lost. Observations: Applications powered by LLMs are increasingly used to perform medical tasks without the underlying language model being trained on medical records and without verifying their purported benefit in performing those tasks. Conclusions and Relevance: The creation and use of LLMs in medicine need to be actively shaped by provisioning relevant training data, specifying the desired benefits, and evaluating the benefits via testing in real-world deployments.

Indexed as

LanguageMachine LearningMedical RecordsMedicineComputer Simulation

Identifiers

PMID37548965
OpenAlexW4385620388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.