Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40665965›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025

Integrating large language models in biostatistical workflows for clinical and translational research.

Steven C Grambow, Manisha Desai, Kevin P Weinfurt, Christopher J Lindsell, Michael J Pencina, Lacey Rende, Gina-Maria Pomann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Steven C GrambowDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6037-3253
Manisha DesaiDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6949-2651
Kevin P WeinfurtDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0624-7448
Christopher J LindsellDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3297-2811
Michael J PencinaDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Lacey RendeDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8695-1839
Gina-Maria PomannDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6324-3953

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Biostatisticians increasingly use large language models (LLMs) to enhance efficiency, yet practical guidance on responsible integration is limited. This study explores current LLM usage, challenges, and training needs to support biostatisticians. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted across three biostatistics units at two academic medical centers. The survey assessed LLM usage across three key professional activities: communication and leadership, clinical and domain knowledge, and quantitative expertise. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while free-text responses underwent thematic analysis. Results: Of 208 eligible biostatisticians (162 staff and 46 faculty), 69 (33.2%) responded. Among them, 44 (63.8%) reported using LLMs; of the 43 who answered the frequency question, 20 (46.5%) used them daily and 16 (37.2%) weekly. LLMs improved productivity in coding, writing, and literature review; however, 29 of 41 respondents (70.7%) reported significant errors, including incorrect code, statistical misinterpretations, and hallucinated functions. Key verification strategies included expertise, external validation, debugging, and manual inspection. Among 58 respondents providing training feedback, 44 (75.9%) requested case studies, 40 (69.0%) sought interactive tutorials, and 37 (63.8%) desired structured training. Conclusions: LLM usage is notable among respondents at two academic medical centers, though response patterns likely reflect early adopters. While LLMs enhance productivity, challenges like errors and reliability concerns highlight the need for verification strategies and systematic validation. The strong interest in training underscores the need for structured guidance. As an initial step, we propose eight core principles for responsible LLM integration, offering a preliminary framework for structured usage, validation, and ethical considerations.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceBiostatisticsclinical researchcollaborative researchlarge language models

Identifiers

PMID40665965
PMCPMC12260977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.