ReviewHealthcare technology letters
Evidence Synthesis of the Ethical and Legal Challenges of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Provision of Patient Health Information.
Review in Healthcare technology letters. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language model (LLM)-based generative AI offers the promise of responsive health information for patients and carers but presents ethical and legal challenges when used outside clinical oversight. This review maps these considerations for patients accessing information on long-term conditions in non-clinical settings. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Web of Science) between April and May 2025. The review synthesises 24 cross-sectional studies regarding patient-facing LLMs, excluding clinician-support tools. Results indicate that LLMs perform well on general topics but struggle with specialised information, often generating complex responses with unreliable citations. Ethical concerns highlight inaccuracy, insufficient empathy, and the potential exacerbation of health inequalities, while analyses of legal challenges focus mainly on liability and consent. We conclude that current technical limitations and regulatory gaps regarding device classification and safety obligations could pose risks to patients. Consequently, stakeholders must establish clear accountability frameworks, and LLMs should currently function only as supplementary tools rather than replacements for expert clinical advice. Further research into the use of agent-based LLM architectures, where specialised LLM agents collaborate to verify information, reason symbolically, and interface with patient health records under strict data governance, may provide the solution to the current limitations of LLMs.
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.