ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2026
Novelty to necessity: large language models in clinical practice-a call to action for physicians.
Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Large language models (LLMs) represent a rapidly advancing subset of artificial intelligence with significant potential to augment clinical practice. These tools can assist in literature synthesis, documentation, clinical reasoning, and patient communication. Despite demonstrated capabilities, adoption in healthcare remains limited due to barriers such as limited AI literacy, trust concerns, integration challenges, and generational disparities in digital proficiency. This review critically examines the role of LLMs as cognitive adjuncts in medicine, emphasizing the need for calibrated trust, human oversight, structured implementation strategies, and robust regulatory governance. Evidence suggests that stepwise integration of LLMs, beginning with low-risk tasks, may enhance physician efficiency, reduce cognitive burden, and may support high-quality care. Key limitations, including hallucinations, data currency, environmental impact, and data security, have to be addressed, alongside the need for continuous model refinement. Rigorous clinical trials are needed to establish the efficacy of LLMs. This includes the recognition that LLMs trained on vast web data may contain personal health information, creating a significant privacy risk. Responsible adoption of LLMs is essential to meet the demands of modern medicine while preserving clinical accountability and patient-centered care.
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.