ReviewDigital health
Application of large language models in healthcare: A bibliometric analysis.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Models Using Clinical Text in Pediatrics: A Scoping Review.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence Methodology Reporting in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Evaluation of large language model-generated information in diabetes health patient education: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of ChatGPT to provide esophageal cancer information: A SERVQUAL-based analysis.Digital healthArticle
- Article
- Accuracy of large language models in interpreting urological clinical guidelines: a comparative study with expert evaluation.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
- Article
- Article
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective is to provide an overview of the application of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare by employing a bibliometric analysis methodology. Method: We performed a comprehensive search for peer-reviewed English-language articles using PubMed and Web of Science. The selected articles were subsequently clustered and analyzed textually, with a focus on lexical co-occurrences, country-level and inter-author collaborations, and other relevant factors. This textual analysis produced high-level concept maps that illustrate specific terms and their interconnections. Findings: Our final sample comprised 371 English-language journal articles. The study revealed a sharp rise in the number of publications related to the application of LLMs in healthcare. However, the development is geographically imbalanced, with a higher concentration of articles originating from developed countries like the United States, Italy, and Germany, which also exhibit strong inter-country collaboration. LLMs are applied across various specialties, with researchers investigating their use in medical education, diagnosis, treatment, administrative reporting, and enhancing doctor-patient communication. Nonetheless, significant concerns persist regarding the risks and ethical implications of LLMs, including the potential for gender and racial bias, as well as the lack of transparency in the training datasets, which can lead to inaccurate or misleading responses. Conclusion: While the application of LLMs in healthcare is promising, the widespread adoption of LLMs in practice requires further improvements in their standardization and accuracy. It is critical to establish clear accountability guidelines, develop a robust regulatory framework, and ensure that training datasets are based on evidence-based sources to minimize risk and ensure ethical and reliable use.
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.