ArticleJMIR AI2024
Cost, Usability, Credibility, Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Explainability Framework for Safe and Effective Large Language Models in Medical Education: Narrative Review and Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translating machine learning predictions into meaningful risk estimates to support clinical decisions: a post hoc analysis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease adverse outcomes using unified auto clinical scores.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence-driven orthodontic education practices.BMC medical education · 2026Review
- Ethical Responsibility in Medical AI: A Semi-Systematic Thematic Review and Multilevel Governance Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Application of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: A Systematic and Narrative Review of Pedagogical Potential and Ethical Implications.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
- Article
- LINS: A general medical Q&A framework for enhancing the quality and credibility of LLM-generated responses.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Evaluating the role of large language models in traditional Chinese medicine diagnosis and treatment recommendations.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Utilizing AI-Powered Thematic Analysis: Methodology, Implementation, and Lessons Learned.Cureus · 2025Article
- AI in Home Care-Evaluation of Large Language Models for Future Training of Informal Caregivers: Observational Comparative Case Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- How to incorporate generative artificial intelligence in nephrology fellowship education.Journal of nephrology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe world has witnessed increased adoption of large language models (LLMs) in the last year. Although the products developed using LLMs have the potential to solve accessibility and efficiency problems in health care, there is a lack of available guidelines for developing LLMs for health care, especially for medical education.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to identify and prioritize the enablers for developing successful LLMs for medical education. We further evaluated the relationships among these identified enablers.
methodsA narrative review of the extant literature was first performed to identify the key enablers for LLM development. We additionally gathered the opinions of LLM users to determine the relative importance of these enablers using an analytical hierarchy process (AHP), which is a multicriteria decision-making method. Further, total interpretive structural modeling (TISM) was used to analyze the perspectives of product developers and ascertain the relationships and hierarchy among these enablers. Finally, the cross-impact matrix-based multiplication applied to a classification (MICMAC) approach was used to determine the relative driving and dependence powers of these enablers. A nonprobabilistic purposive sampling approach was used for recruitment of focus groups.
resultsThe AHP demonstrated that the most important enabler for LLMs was credibility, with a priority weight of 0.37, followed by accountability (0.27642) and fairness (0.10572). In contrast, usability, with a priority weight of 0.04, showed negligible importance. The results of TISM concurred with the findings of the AHP. The only striking difference between expert perspectives and user preference evaluation was that the product developers indicated that cost has the least importance as a potential enabler. The MICMAC analysis suggested that cost has a strong influence on other enablers. The inputs of the focus group were found to be reliable, with a consistency ratio less than 0.1 (0.084).
conclusionsThis study is the first to identify, prioritize, and analyze the relationships of enablers of effective LLMs for medical education. Based on the results of this study, we developed a comprehendible prescriptive framework, named CUC-FATE (Cost, Usability, Credibility, Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Explainability), for evaluating the enablers of LLMs in medical education. The study findings are useful for health care professionals, health technology experts, medical technology regulators, and policy makers.
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.