ReviewInnere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Focus: artificial intelligence in medicine-Legal aspects of using large language models in clinical practice].
Review in Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Artificial intelligence in the preparation of clinical expert opinions : Current evidence, use cases, and limitations in orthopedic assessment].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Can open source large language models be used for tumor documentation in Germany?-An evaluation on urological doctors' notes.BioData mining · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP) methods in medicine, particularly large language models (LLMs), offers opportunities to advance the healthcare system and patient care in Germany. LLMs have recently gained importance, but their practical application in hospitals and practices has so far been limited. Research and implementation are hampered by a complex legal situation. It is essential to research LLMs in clinical studies in Germany and to develop guidelines for users.
objectiveHow can foundations for the data protection-compliant use of LLMs, particularly cloud-based LLMs, be established in the German healthcare system? The aim of this work is to present the data protection aspects of using cloud-based LLMs in clinical research and patient care in Germany and the European Union (EU); to this end, key statements of a legal opinion on this matter are considered. Insofar as the requirements for use are regulated by state laws (vs. federal laws), the legal situation in Berlin is used as a basis. MATERIALS AND
methodsAs part of a research project, a legal opinion was commissioned to clarify the data protection aspects of the use of LLMs with cloud-based solutions at the Charité - University Hospital Berlin, Germany. Specific questions regarding the processing of personal data were examined.
resultsThe legal framework varies depending on the type of data processing and the relevant federal state (Bundesland). For anonymous data, data protection requirements need not apply. Where personal data is processed, it should be pseudonymized if possible. In the research context, patient consent is usually required to process their personal data, and data processing agreements must be concluded with the providers. Recommendations originating from LLMs must always be reviewed by medical doctors.
conclusionsThe use of cloud-based LLMs is possible as long as data protection requirements are observed. The legal framework is complex and requires transparency from providers. Future developments could increase the potential of AI and particularly LLMs in everyday clinical practice; however, clear legal and ethical guidelines are necessary.
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.