ArticleHealth science reports2026
How Can Large Language Models Improve Health Research Skills: A Perspective Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How Can Large Language Models Improve Health Research Skills: A Perspective Study.Health science reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Health researchers often struggle with challenges such as translating complex texts, interpreting nuanced information, conducting detailed statistical analyses, and more. Artificial Intelligence (AI) models, by providing easy access to information, offer a promising solution to these challenges. This study aims to examine university students' perspectives on the impact of AI models in overcoming these challenges. Methods: This survey study was conducted in 2023 by using a researcher-developed questionnaire. A total of 445 students from the Kerman University of Medical Sciences participated and completed the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to analyze the relationship between independent variables and the impact of AI models on health research. Open-ended responses were coded and stored in MAXQDA. Results: Sixty percent of students reported moderate or greater familiarity with AI models, while only 52% had moderate or greater usage of these tools. Over 70% considered the associated risks high. Participants rated AI models most favorably for "Translation of an article" (Mean = 3.33, SD = 1.07), "Article rephrasing" (Mean = 3.33, SD = 1.07), and "Reference search" (Mean = 3.27, SD = 1.14), with the lowest ratings for "Article submissions" (Mean = 3.10, SD = 1.01), "Data analysis" (Mean = 3.23, SD = 1.01), and "Proposal submissions" (Mean = 3.23, SD = 0.91), respectively. The most important applications of AI models were noted in "Translation of research" (Mean = 3.44), "Grammer checking" (Mean = 3.46, SD = 1.12), and "Text editing" (Mean = 3.35, SD = 1.14), while the least were in "Correspondence with journal editors" (Mean = 2.99, SD = 1.20), "Adherence to journal guidelines" (Mean = 3.07, SD = 1.17), and "Response to the reviewers' comments" (Mean = 3.12, SD = 1.13). "Providing false information" ( Conclusions: AI models show promise for improving research efficiency and quality, but further efforts are necessary to mitigate perceived risks and encourage broader adoption.
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.