SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024
Applications and Concerns of ChatGPT and Other Conversational Large Language Models in Health Care: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
88 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Concerns of Using Large Language Models in Health Care Research and Practice: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Large language models in obesity: a systematic review.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2026Pooled it
- Large language models in healthcare: applications, evaluation frameworks, and governance pathways - a scoping review and multidimensional framework.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Application of artificial intelligence tools and clinical documentation burden: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of ethical considerations of large language models in healthcare and medicine.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Competing Framings: Variability in AI-Generated Health Policy Guidance and Its Implications for Global Nursing.Nursing inquiry · 2026Article
- Generative Large Language Models in Mental Health Care Settings: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR AI · 2026Review
- Evaluation and Comparison of Large Language Model Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome: A Quality and Readability Assessment Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Cautious Integration With AI in the Clinic: A Standardized-Patient Pilot Study of ChatGPT's Reliability in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Scoring.Alpha psychiatry · 2026Article
- Performance of GPT-4o and Claude in Medical Ethics Scenarios: Comparative Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Body Image and Eating Disorder Education Chatbot, JEM, in Australia and Canada: First 6-Month Real-World Survey Evaluation.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Assessing Quality, Readability, and Transparency of Online and AI-Generated Information on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study.JMIR diabetes · 2026Article
- Augmenting medical data interpretation with Large Language Models (LLMs): a comparative analysis of patient empowerment, information processing, and technology acceptance.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Comparative benchmark assessment of performance of six different large language models in clinical decision-making for vital pulp therapy.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Assessing Readability and DISCERN Quality of Osteoporosis Education Materials Generated by ChatGPT and Deepseek for Diverse Health Literacy Levels: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Large language models for acute coronary syndrome triage at first medical contact in emergency departments.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical Evaluation of ChatGPT-5.3 Responses to Patient-Oriented Questions on Scoliosis: A Multidimensional Expert Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Arkangel AI, OpenEvidence, ChatGPT, Medisearch: Are They Objectively up to Medical Standards? A Real-Life Assessment of LLM Chatbots in Health Care.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Article
- Current practices and perceptions of ChatGPT in gynecologic oncology: results from a cross-sectional questionnaire (TRSGO-AI-001).BMC medical education · 2026Article
28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe launch of ChatGPT (OpenAI) in November 2022 attracted public attention and academic interest to large language models (LLMs), facilitating the emergence of many other innovative LLMs. These LLMs have been applied in various fields, including health care. Numerous studies have since been conducted regarding how to use state-of-the-art LLMs in health-related scenarios.
objectiveThis review aims to summarize applications of and concerns regarding conversational LLMs in health care and provide an agenda for future research in this field.
methodsWe used PubMed, ACM, and the IEEE digital libraries as primary sources for this review. We followed the guidance of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) to screen and select peer-reviewed research articles that (1) were related to health care applications and conversational LLMs and (2) were published before September 1, 2023, the date when we started paper collection. We investigated these papers and classified them according to their applications and concerns.
resultsOur search initially identified 820 papers according to targeted keywords, out of which 65 (7.9%) papers met our criteria and were included in the review. The most popular conversational LLM was ChatGPT (60/65, 92% of papers), followed by Bard (Google LLC; 1/65, 2% of papers), LLaMA (Meta; 1/65, 2% of papers), and other LLMs (6/65, 9% papers). These papers were classified into four categories of applications: (1) summarization, (2) medical knowledge inquiry, (3) prediction (eg, diagnosis, treatment recommendation, and drug synergy), and (4) administration (eg, documentation and information collection), and four categories of concerns: (1) reliability (eg, training data quality, accuracy, interpretability, and consistency in responses), (2) bias, (3) privacy, and (4) public acceptability. There were 49 (75%) papers using LLMs for either summarization or medical knowledge inquiry, or both, and there are 58 (89%) papers expressing concerns about either reliability or bias, or both. We found that conversational LLMs exhibited promising results in summarization and providing general medical knowledge to patients with a relatively high accuracy. However, conversational LLMs such as ChatGPT are not always able to provide reliable answers to complex health-related tasks (eg, diagnosis) that require specialized domain expertise. While bias or privacy issues are often noted as concerns, no experiments in our reviewed papers thoughtfully examined how conversational LLMs lead to these issues in health care research.
conclusionsFuture studies should focus on improving the reliability of LLM applications in complex health-related tasks, as well as investigating the mechanisms of how LLM applications bring bias and privacy issues. Considering the vast accessibility of LLMs, legal, social, and technical efforts are all needed to address concerns about LLMs to promote, improve, and regularize the application of LLMs in health care.
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.