The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Conversational AI with large language models to increase the uptake of clinical guidance
Open accessAbstract
The rise of large language models (LLMs) and conversational applications, like ChatGPT , prompts Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, such as NICE, to rethink how healthcare professionals access clinical guidance. Integrating LLMs into systems like Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) offers potential solutions to current LLMs’ problems, like the generation of false or misleading information. The objective of this paper is to design and debate the value of an AI-driven system, similar to ChatGPT, to enhance the uptake of clinical guidance within the National Health Service (NHS) of the UK. Conversational interfaces, powered by LLMs, offer healthcare practitioners clear benefits over traditional ways of getting clinical guidance, such as easy navigation through long documents, blending information from various trusted sources, or expediting evidence-based decisions in situ. But, putting these interfaces into practice brings new challenges for HTA bodies, like assuring quality, addressing data privacy concerns, navigating existing resource constraints , or preparing the organization for innovative practices. Rigorous empirical evaluations are necessary to validate their effectiveness in increasing the uptake of clinical guidance among healthcare practitioners. A feasible evaluation strategy is elucidated in this research while its implementation remains as future work.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Macia et al. (2024) conduct implementation research on developing a RAG system to query NICE guidelines but do not implement it.”
From Grounding Large Language Models in Clinical Evidence: A Retrieval-Augmented Generation System for Querying UK NICE Clinical Guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as Macia et al. (2024)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 10 · Cited by 9
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Eccles, 2006, Welcome to implementation science, Implement Sci, 1, 1, 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 · DOI · Paper page
- Wang, 2024, Potential for GPT technology to optimize future clinical decision-making using retrieval-augmented generation, Ann Biomed Eng, 52, 1115, 10.1007/s10439-023-03327-6 · DOI
- Nadarzynski, 2024, Achieving health equity through conversational AI: a roadmap for design and implementation of inclusive chatbots in healthcare, PLOS Digit Health, 3, 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000492 · DOI
- Loh, 2023, ChatGPT and generative AI chatbots: challenges and opportunities for science, medicine and medical leaders, BMJ Lead. Published Online
- Morley, 2023, Generative AI for medical research, BMJ, 382
- Johnson J, Douze M, Jégou H. Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs. Published online February 28; 2017. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1702.08734. · DOI · Paper page
- Sharma, 2024, A reliable knowledge processing framework for combustion science using foundation models, Energy AI., 16, 10.1016/j.egyai.2024.100365 · DOI
- Thakur AS, Choudhary K, Ramayapally VS, Vaidyanathan S, Hupkes D. Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges. Published online July 1, 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.12624. · DOI · Paper page
- The Importance of Diversity and Inclusion in the Healthcare Workforce - PMC. Accessed January 3, 20https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7387183/.
- Privacy in the Time of Language Models | Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. Accessed January 3, 2024. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3539597.3575792. · DOI · Paper page
Metadata
- Authors
- Macia, G., Liddell, A., & Doyle, V.
- Affiliations
- London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Macia, Gloria
- ORCID
- Macia, Gloria
- Venue
- Clinical eHealth
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-12
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 147-152
- ISSN
- 2588-9141 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4405350532
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 0.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Clinical eHealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- large language models, conversational AI, retrieval-augmented generation, ChatGPT, health technology assessment, Nice, National Health Service, healthcare workers, evidence-based decision making, data privacy, assessment methods
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conversational AI with large language models to increase the uptake of clinical guidance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ceh.2024.12.001
- The paper
- Macia, G., Liddell, A., & Doyle, V. (2024). Conversational AI with large language models to increase the uptake of clinical guidance. Clinical eHealth. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceh.2024.12.001