ReviewCureus2025
Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Personalized Medicine: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Teaching AI ethics in medical schools: a scoping review protocol on the ethical-technical balance in curricular frameworks.BMJ open · 2026Article
- AI-Enabled Precision Dosing in Pediatrics: Enhancing Model-Informed Decision Making.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- The road from standardized to personalized medicine: the difficult-to-treat framework as a critical waystation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- AI-Powered Building Ecosystems: A Narrative Mapping Review on the Integration of Digital Twins and LLMs for Proactive Comfort, IEQ, and Energy Management.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- Review
- Artificial intelligence in maternal and child health: Current applications, translational gaps, and future research priorities.Women's health (London, England)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
Precision medicine presents challenges in data collection, cost, and privacy as it tailors treatments to each patient's unique genetic and clinical profile. With its ability to produce realistic and confidential patient data, generative artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising avenue that could revolutionize patient-centric healthcare. This systematic review aims to assess the role of generative AI in personalized medicine. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Google Scholar, identifying 549 studies. After removing duplicates and applying eligibility criteria, 27 studies were found relevant and were included in this systematic review. Generative adversarial networks (GANs) were the most commonly used models (16 studies), followed by variational autoencoders (VAEs; seven studies). These models were primarily applied to drug response prediction, treatment effect estimation, biomarker discovery, and patient stratification. Generative AI models have shown significant promise in revolutionizing personalized medicine by enabling precise treatment predictions and patient-specific therapeutic insights. Despite their potential, challenges related to model validation, interpretability, and bias remain. Future research should prioritize large-scale validation studies using diverse datasets to enhance the clinical applicability and reliability of these AI-driven approaches.
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.