ReviewCellular and molecular bioengineering2024
Based on Medicine, The Now and Future of Large Language Models.
Review in Cellular and molecular bioengineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AI in Medical Questionnaires: Scoping ReviewJournal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing the accuracy, reliability, quality, and readability of artificial intelligence chatbots in patient education: insights from zirconia crowns.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Nursing Education: Concept Analysis.JMIR nursing · 2025Review
- Performance Evaluation of Large Language Models in Cervical Cancer Management Based on a Standardized Questionnaire: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Evaluating the quality of large language model-generated preoperative patient education material: a comparative study across models and surgery types.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Convergence of Nanotechnology and Machine Learning: The State of the Art, Challenges, and Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
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
Objectives: This review explores the potential applications of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 in the medical field, aiming to encourage their prudent use, provide professional support, and develop accessible medical AI tools that adhere to healthcare standards. Methods: This paper examines the impact of technologies such as OpenAI's Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT) series, including GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, and other large language models (LLMs) in medical education, scientific research, clinical practice, and nursing. Specifically, it includes supporting curriculum design, acting as personalized learning assistants, creating standardized simulated patient scenarios in education; assisting with writing papers, data analysis, and optimizing experimental designs in scientific research; aiding in medical imaging analysis, decision-making, patient education, and communication in clinical practice; and reducing repetitive tasks, promoting personalized care and self-care, providing psychological support, and enhancing management efficiency in nursing. Results: LLMs, including ChatGPT, have demonstrated significant potential and effectiveness in the aforementioned areas, yet their deployment in healthcare settings is fraught with ethical complexities, potential lack of empathy, and risks of biased responses. Conclusion: Despite these challenges, significant medical advancements can be expected through the proper use of LLMs and appropriate policy guidance. Future research should focus on overcoming these barriers to ensure the effective and ethical application of LLMs in the medical field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.