Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42080195›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2026

Responsible use of large language models in gastroenterology and hepatology.

Sahil Khanna

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Sahil KhannaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7619-8338

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) and related generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems are rapidly entering clinical workflows, including in gastroenterology and hepatology, where text-heavy documentation, guideline-driven care, and high-volume patient messaging create a strong demand for decision support and automation. Deployment raises distinctive risks: hallucinations and unsafe recommendations, automation bias, privacy and confidentiality threats, inequitable care, intellectual property and licensing uncertainty, and unclear allocation of responsibility across clinicians, institutions, and vendors. Regulators are increasingly emphasizing a lifecycle approach to trustworthy AI, including validation, risk management, human oversight, cybersecurity, monitoring, and transparency. Frameworks for healthcare protection regulate how health information may be shared with external model providers and how outputs should be logged, audited, and retained. This review synthesizes practical guidance for responsible LLM use, organized around (1) tiered use cases and risk stratification; (2) ethical principles (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, and accountability); (3) core legal and regulatory considerations; and (4) operational governance, evaluation, and monitoring strategies. Actionable checklists to support institutional adoption, use, and transparency are provided. Responsible use requires aligning LLM capabilities with risk, preventing inappropriate data sharing, validating performance in representative populations, ensuring human oversight and clear accountability, mitigating harm, and maintaining an evidence-based, continuously monitored deployment lifecycle.

Indexed as

clinical decision supportethicsgastroenterologygenerative artificial intelligencegovernancehepatologylarge language modelslawprivacyregulation

Identifiers

PMID42080195
PMCPMC13129269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.