Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39509695›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024

Applications and Concerns of ChatGPT and Other Conversational Large Language Models in Health Care: Systematic Review.

Leyao Wang, Zhiyu Wan, Congning Ni, Qingyuan Song, Yang Li, Ellen Clayton, Bradley Malin, Zhijun Yin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

88 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Large language models in obesity: a systematic review.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Leyao Wang *Department of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID 0009-0000-0958-5605
Zhiyu Wan *Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3752-5778
Congning NiDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6950-6948
Qingyuan SongDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2999-8690
Yang LiDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID 0009-0003-5177-1796
Ellen ClaytonDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0308-4110
Bradley MalinDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3040-5175
Zhijun YinDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3075-1337

Funding

Genetic Privacy and Identity in Community Settings - GetPreCiSeRM1HG009034 · NHGRI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI CLAYTON, ELLEN WRIGHT, MALIN, BRADLEY A. · 2016 to 2024
$8.3M
Prediction of Anti-Cancer Medication Discontinuation via Patient Portal Messages and Structured Electronic Medical RecordsR37CA237452 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI YIN, ZHIJUN · 2020 to 2025
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS R37 CA237452NHGRI NIH HHS RM1 HG009034
6 · The paper itself

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

Delivery of Health CareCommunicationHumansLanguageartificial intelligencebiasChatGPThealth carelarge language modelmedical knowledge inquirynatural language processingprivacyreliabilitysummarization

Identifiers

PMID39509695
PMCPMC11582494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.