ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2025
An Australasian survey on the use of ChatGPT and other large language models in medical physics.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- ROS 4 healthcare: a framework for physiological human sensing for social, assistive, rehabilitation, and medical robotics.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Article
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- From Mutation to Prognosis: AI-HOPE-PI3K Enables Artificial Intelligence Agent-Driven Integration of PI3K Pathway Data in Colorectal Cancer Precision Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study surveyed medical physicists in Australia and New Zealand on their use of large language models (LLMs), particularly ChatGPT. There is currently no literature on the application of ChatGPT and other LLMs by medical physicists. This survey targeted a mixed group of professionals, including clinical medical physicists, registrars, students, and other specialised roles. It reveals that many respondents integrate LLM platforms into their work for a broad range of tasks. Most participants reported efficiency gains, although fewer perceived improvements in the overall quality of their work. Despite these benefits, substantial concerns remain regarding data security, patient confidentiality, and the lack of established guidelines or professional training for using these tools in a clinical context. Further, the potential for sudden changes in accessibility and pricing, which could disproportionately impact developing countries and under-resourced departments, implies that other vulnerabilities may exist. These findings suggest the need for the medical physics community to come together and debate the careful balance between exploiting LLM platforms and developing clear best practices that implement robust risk management strategies.
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.