ArticleAnnals of pediatric endocrinology & metabolism2025
A guide to evade hallucinations and maintain reliability when using large language models for medical research: a narrative review.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptive Fast-Slow Large Language Model Framework for Multidimensional Classification of Prenatal Ultrasound Reports: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Hallucination risk and trustworthiness of generative AI systems based on IVMPF-MABAC decision-making strategies.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models for pharmacotherapy simulations: a mixed-methods study.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing history-taking education through GPT-4-based virtual patients and automated assessment: a study of medical student perceptions.Korean journal of medical education · 2026Article
- Challenges of Implementing LLMs in Clinical Practice: Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Large Language Model Advances in Transfusion Medicine: From Answering Questions to Supporting Clinical Decisions.Annals of laboratory medicine · 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
1 author.
Funding
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
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.