ReviewCommunications medicine2026
Evidence, use cases, and implementation safeguards of large language models in primary care.
Review in Communications 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent developments in large language models (LLMs) have created new opportunities to support primary care, where much of clinical work is text-mediated. This narrative review synthesizes evidence on LLM applications relevant to primary care workflows and summarizes implementation safeguards. Across studies, the most consistently supported near-term value is workflow augmentation, particularly documentation and inbox management (e.g., drafting portal replies and summarizing information for clinician review) and communication support, where benefits are reported primarily as process endpoints (time, acceptability, perceived communication quality) rather than hard patient outcomes. Evidence for improvements in clinician diagnostic reasoning, treatment planning, and downstream patient outcomes is more limited and context-dependent, and many evaluations remain simulated or conducted in adjacent settings, limiting generalizability to routine primary care. Accordingly, potential roles in population health and cost reduction should be treated as hypothesis-generating and evaluated prospectively. Challenges related to privacy, security, transparency, and model reliability shape organizational governance requirements and evolving regulatory expectations for the clinical use of generative AI in primary care. We emphasize a pragmatic adoption approach: prioritize high-volume, lower-risk clerical and communication workflows; maintain clinician verification and accountability; and apply governance and equity safeguards (e.g. privacy, security, transparency, auditability, monitoring for drift and error) before scale-up.
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.