ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2026
Large Language Models and Primary Care: A Scoping Review.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) offer transformative potential for primary care but carry risks regarding bias and reliability. This scoping review synthesizes evidence on LLM applications in primary care adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We searched 10 databases for original research and assessed risk of bias using PROBAST. Of 28 included studies, most originated from high-income countries, with significant underrepresentation of low-and-middle-income regions. Common applications included information extraction (25%) and predictive modeling (14%). While performance was generally high (F1-scores 0.70-0.95) for structured tasks, interpretive tasks showed greater variability. Crucially, only 18% of studies had a low overall risk of bias, with 39% exhibiting high risk. While LLMs demonstrate utility in administrative and clinical tasks, the current landscape is geographically skewed and methodologically limited, requiring rigorous, inclusive evaluation frameworks before widespread adoption.
Identifiers
42317827PMC13274289What 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.