ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Ethical Considerations in Personal Health Large Language Models.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personal health large language models (PH-LLMs) have rapidly evolved from research prototypes into consumer-facing, data-linked systems that support symptom triage, medication questions, mental health check-ins, and longitudinal self-management. Their direct-to-consumer use without clinical oversight creates a distinct ethical risk profile that general artificial intelligence governance frameworks do not fully address. This viewpoint focuses on text-based, platform-mediated PH-LLMs and synthesizes PH-LLM-specific challenges across 6 domains: privacy, accuracy, equity, transparency, human-artificial intelligence interaction, and regulatory governance. These risks may be amplified by health literacy gaps, longitudinal data aggregation, persuasive conversational design, and fragmented oversight across the consumer-clinical boundary. Grounded in the 4 principles of biomedical ethics, we propose a governance framework that operationalizes beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice through design and deployment controls, including health literacy-aligned communication, crisis and pharmacological safeguards, hallucination mitigation, role disclosure, granular consent, fairness auditing, and accessible design. We further outline implementation mechanisms, including risk-tiered certification, tiered accountability, and postdeployment oversight through adverse-event reporting, transparency reporting, and independent safety evaluation. This framework is intended as an evidence-informed but partly anticipatory approach to governing PH-LLMs in personal health management.
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.