Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40624912›Full record

ArticleAnnals of pediatric endocrinology & metabolism2025

A guide to evade hallucinations and maintain reliability when using large language models for medical research: a narrative review.

Sangzin Ahn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of pediatric endocrinology & metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sangzin AhnDepartment of Pharmacology and Pharmacogenomics Research Center, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea.

Funding

Ministry of Science and ICTNational Research Foundation of Korea 2018R1A5A2021242
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly prevalent in medical research; however, fundamental limitations in their architecture create inherent reliability challenges, particularly in specialized medical contexts. These limitations stem from autoregressive prediction mechanisms and computational constraints related to undecidability, hindering perfect accuracy. Current mitigation strategies include advanced prompting techniques such as Chain-of-Thought reasoning and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) frameworks, although these approaches are insufficient to eliminate the core reliability issues. Meta-analyses of human-artificial intelligence collaboration experiments revealed that, although LLMs can augment individual human capabilities, they are most effective in specific contexts allowing human verification. Successful integration of LLMs in medical research requires careful tool selection aligned with task requirements and appropriate verification mechanisms. Evolution of the field indicates a balanced approach combining technological innovation with established expertise, emphasizing human oversight particularly in complex biological systems. This review highlights the importance of understanding the technical limitations of LLMs while maximizing their potential through thoughtful application and rigorous verification processes, ensuring high standards of scientific integrity in medical research.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceMedical writingNatural language processingReliabilityScholarly communication

Identifiers

PMID40624912
PMCPMC12235426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.