ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Use, knowledge and perception of large language models in clinical practice: a cross-sectional mixed-methods survey among clinicians in Switzerland.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 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.
- Large language model use in dental education: a cross-sectional multi-country study.Medical education online · 2026Article
- Review
- Benchmarking large language models against practicing clinicians on psychopathological assessment.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLarge language model (LLM)-based tools offer potential for clinical practice but raise concerns regarding output accuracy, patient safety and data security. We aimed to assess Swiss clinicians' use, knowledge and perception of LLMs and identify associated factors.
methodsAn anonymous online survey was distributed via 34 medical societies in Switzerland. The primary outcome was frequent use of LLMs (at least weekly use). The secondary outcome was higher knowledge regarding LLMs (score above the median in an 11-item test). Qualitative analysis explored clinicians' perceptions of LLM-related opportunities and risks.
resultsAmong 685 participants (response rate 29.0%), 225 (32.8%) reported frequent use of LLMs, 25 (3.6%) reported having used a specific medical LLM and 42 (6%) reported the availability of workplace LLM guidelines. The median knowledge test score was 6 points (IQR 4-8 points). Multivariable analysis showed that younger age, male sex and research activity were significantly associated with frequent use and higher knowledge. Qualitative analysis identified administrative support, analytical assistance and access to information as key opportunities. The main risks identified were declining clinical skills, poor output quality and legal or ethical concerns. DISCUSSION: The study highlights a notable adoption of LLMs among Swiss clinicians, particularly among younger, male and research-active individuals. However, the limited availability of workplace guidelines raises concerns about safe and effective use.
conclusionThe gap between widespread LLM use and the scarcity of workplace guidelines underscores the need for accessible educational resources and clinical guidelines to mitigate potential risks and promote informed use.
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.