ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Hotspot Evolution and Future Prospects of Large Language Models in Medical Education: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
Background: Advances in AI and NLP have popularized large language models (LLMs) in medical education. Post-2022 research has proliferated yet remains fragmented; no comprehensive bibliometric mapping systematically outlines this field's global layout, collaboration networks and thematic evolution. Objective: To clarify publication trends, core contributors, collaboration patterns, research hotspots and evolutionary frontiers of LLMs in medical education via bibliometric analysis, and deliver targeted insights for educational practice. Methods: This is a systematic bibliometric study. We collected 2016-March 2026 peer-reviewed English papers from WoSCC and Scopus. Metadata were standardized and analyzed with the Bibliometrix R package and VOSviewer to generate publication statistics, collaboration networks, citation metrics and keyword cluster maps. Results: In total, 1991 papers were included, with an annual growth rate of 59.04%. The US (28.5%) and China (15.9%) led global outputs; Harvard, the University of Toronto and top Chinese scholars dominated contributions, and JMIR Medical Education served as the core journal. Five thematic clusters were identified: education ethics, LLM performance, patient education, clinical reasoning and intelligent assessment. Research priorities shifted from basic neural network exploration to privacy and standardized large-scale LLM deployment after 2024. Conclusion: LLM medical education research grows rapidly but suffers insufficient empirical evidence, unbalanced themes and delayed governance frameworks. Based on our bibliometric findings, we propose practical optimization schemes: strengthen interdisciplinary research, build matched risk supervision, define LLMs as teaching assistants, and prioritize cohort trials, specialized medical LLMs and unified ethical standards. Academic Contributions: This study provides the latest full-spectrum quantitative mapping of the field, fills gaps in systematic literature review, and offers actionable references for medical educators, curriculum developers and policymakers to realize safe, high-quality LLM integration into medical education.
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.