Utilizing natural language processing and large language models in the diagnosis and prediction of infectious diseases: A systematic review
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Background Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Large Language Models (LLMs) hold largely untapped potential in infectious disease management. This review explores their current use and uncovers areas needing more attention. Methods This analysis followed systematic review procedures, registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. We conducted a search across major databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, up to December 2023, using keywords related to NLP, LLM, and infectious diseases. We also employed the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool for evaluating the quality and robustness of the included studies. Results Our review identified 15 studies with diverse applications of NLP in infectious disease management. Notable examples include GPT-4's application in detecting urinary tract infections and BERTweet's use in Lyme Disease surveillance through social media analysis. These models demonstrated effective disease monitoring and public health tracking capabilities. However, the effectiveness varied across studies. For instance, while some NLP tools showed high accuracy in pneumonia detection and high sensitivity in identifying invasive mold diseases from medical reports, others fell short in areas like bloodstream infection management. Conclusions This review highlights the yet-to-be-fully-realized promise of NLP and LLMs in infectious disease management. It calls for more exploration to fully harness AI's capabilities, particularly in the areas of diagnosis, surveillance, predicting disease courses, and tracking epidemiological trends.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 64 · Cited by 59
- Authors
- Omar, M., Brin, D., Glicksberg, B., & Klang, E.
- Affiliations
- Tel Aviv University (IL)
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
- Corresponding author
- Omar, Mahmud
- Venue
- American Journal of Infection Control
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-09
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 992-1001
- ISSN
- 0196-6553 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4394009806
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 6
- FWCI
- 1.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- American Journal of Infection Control (publishedVersion)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Data-Driven Disease Surveillance
- Keywords
- natural language processing, large language models, infectious diseases, disease diagnosis, disease prediction, social media analytics, pneumonia detection, bloodstream infection, GPT-4, BERTweet, medical report analysis, disease surveillance
- MeSH terms
- Communicable Diseases, Humans, Natural Language Processing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review