ReviewTurkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi2025
Artificial intelligence in medical and biological research: promise and perils of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in advancing healthcare.
Review in Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi, 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.
- Human medical documentation significantly outperforms ChatGPT-4o in critical clinical dimensions: A blinded comparative assessment in paediatric orthopaedics.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Trial
- Applications of DeepSeek in Medicine: Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Governing synthetic biology and artificial intelligence (AI) convergence: emerging biosecurity priorities for Africa.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek, is being increasingly applied in clinical care, research, and education. The aim of this review is to examine how these tools may transform the conduct of medical and biological research and to define their limitations. Materials and methods: A narrative synthesis of the literature was performed, encompassing studies published between 2020 and 2025. Peer-reviewed journals, systematic reviews, and high-impact original research articles were included to ensure an evidence-based overview. The principle applications, validation metrics, and clinical implications across orthopedics, oncology, cardiology, internal medicine, and the biological sciences were analyzed. Results: LLMs demonstrate strong potential in supporting physicians during clinical decision-making, enhancing patient education, and assisting researchers in their work. They are valuable for language-related tasks and for generating structured, clear, and comprehensible content. However, concerns persist regarding data privacy, algorithmic bias, factual accuracy, and excessive dependence on data-driven outputs. Responsible implementation requires safeguards such as human oversight, model transparency, and domain-specific training. Conclusion: AI tools such as ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and similar models are transforming the way healthcare is delivered and studied. Their current capabilities appear highly promising. However, clinicians, technical experts, and policymakers must collaborate to ensure the safe, equitable, effective, and ethical integration of these technologies into real-world healthcare workflows.
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.