Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41019285›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in digital health2025

A systematic review of ethical considerations of large language models in healthcare and medicine.

Muhammad Fareed, Madeeha Fatima, Jamal Uddin, Adeel Ahmed, Muhammad Awais Sattar

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The Continuity Trap in Data Science Health Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Muhammad FareedRiphah School of Computing & Innovation, Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Madeeha FatimaRiphah School of Computing & Innovation, Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Jamal UddinRiphah School of Computing & Innovation, Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Adeel AhmedRiphah School of Computing & Innovation, Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Muhammad Awais SattarDepartment of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid integration of large language models (LLMs) into healthcare offers significant potential for improving diagnosis, treatment planning, and patient engagement. However, it also presents serious ethical challenges that remain incompletely addressed. In this review, we analyzed 27 peer-reviewed studies published between 2017 and 2025 across four major open-access databases using strict eligibility criteria, robust synthesis methods, and established guidelines to explicitly examine the ethical aspects of deploying LLMs in clinical settings. We explore four key aspects, including the main ethical issues arising from the use of LLMs in healthcare, the prevalent model architectures employed in ethical analyses, the healthcare application domains that are most frequently scrutinized, and the publication and bibliographic patterns characterizing this literature. Our synthesis reveals that bias and fairness (

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)biasbioethical issuesChatGPTdeep learningfairnesslarge language models (LLMs)privacy

Identifiers

PMID41019285
PMCPMC12460403

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.