ArticleResearch square2023
Faithful AI in Medicine: A Systematic Review with Large Language Models and Beyond.
Article in Research square, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring the potential of large language models in nutrition behavior prediction: evidence from college students.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: While artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), offers significant potential for medicine, it raises critical concerns due to the possibility of generating factually incorrect information, leading to potential long-term risks and ethical issues. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the faithfulness problem in existing research on AI in healthcare and medicine, with a focus on the analysis of the causes of unfaithful results, evaluation metrics, and mitigation methods. Materials and Methods: Using PRISMA methodology, we sourced 5,061 records from five databases (PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Google Scholar) published between January 2018 to March 2023. We removed duplicates and screened records based on exclusion criteria. Results: With 40 leaving articles, we conducted a systematic review of recent developments aimed at optimizing and evaluating factuality across a variety of generative medical AI approaches. These include knowledge-grounded LLMs, text-to-text generation, multimodality-to-text generation, and automatic medical fact-checking tasks. Discussion: Current research investigating the factuality problem in medical AI is in its early stages. There are significant challenges related to data resources, backbone models, mitigation methods, and evaluation metrics. Promising opportunities exist for novel faithful medical AI research involving the adaptation of LLMs and prompt engineering. Conclusion: This comprehensive review highlights the need for further research to address the issues of reliability and factuality in medical AI, serving as both a reference and inspiration for future research into the safe, ethical use of AI in medicine and healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.