ArticlePLOS digital health2026
A systematic review of the limitations of large language models in generating healthcare content.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have recently gained prominence in healthcare content provision due to their numerous advantages. Despite these benefits, LLMs exhibit notable limitations in this domain. This study aimed to systematically identify the limitations of LLMs in provision of healthcare content. This study was a systematic review conducted in September 2025, including articles published in English between 2018 and 2025. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Two independent evaluators screened the references and assessed quality of the selected studies using the Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, and Significance (AACODS) checklist. Data were analyzed using Boyatzis's qualitative thematic approach with an inductive methodology, applying the input-process-output (IPO) model as the analytical framework. A total of 81 studies were included in the final analysis. The included studies were predominantly of high quality and demonstrated minimal risk of bias. The thematic analysis identified key themes: data limitations, dependence on input and prompt quality, accessibility issues, model design and architecture constraints, interaction challenges, response quality and comprehensiveness, and ethical, safety, and regulatory concerns. The study identified multiple limitations of LLMs in healthcare, with output issues being most common. In this regard, the most frequently cited limitation was the accuracy gap. However, these output issues were mainly resulted from flaws in input data, emphasizing the crucial role of input quality. The study also proposed strategies to address these challenges.
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.