Generative artificial intelligence in healthcare: A scoping review on benefits, challenges and applications
Abstract
Background Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is revolutionizing healthcare with solutions for complex challenges, enhancing diagnosis, treatment, and care through new data and insights. However, its integration raises questions about applications, benefits, and challenges. Our study explores these aspects, offering an overview of GAI's applications and future prospects in healthcare. Methods This scoping review searched Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus . The selection of studies involved screening titles, reviewing abstracts, and examining full texts, adhering to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines throughout the process. Results From 1406 articles across three databases, 109 met inclusion criteria after screening and deduplication. Nine GAI models were utilized in healthcare, with ChatGPT (n = 102, 74 %), Google Bard (Gemini) (n = 16, 11 %), and Microsoft Bing AI (n = 10, 7 %) being the most frequently employed. A total of 24 different applications of GAI in healthcare were identified, with the most common being "offering insights and information on health conditions through answering questions" (n = 41) and "diagnosis and prediction of diseases" (n = 17). In total, 606 benefits and challenges were identified, which were condensed to 48 benefits and 61 challenges after consolidation. The predominant benefits included "Providing rapid access to information and valuable insights" and "Improving prediction and diagnosis accuracy", while the primary challenges comprised "generati…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
LLMs have demonstrated strong performance across a wide range of biomedical knowledge and reasoning tasks.
“LLMs have demonstrated strong performance across a wide range of biomedical knowledge and reasoning tasks, accelerating their adoption in health care workflows [1-6].”
From Retrieve-Then-Verify for Evaluating Evidence Support and Hallucination in Large Language Model–Generated Medical Information: Empirical Study (2026) · cites this paper as [5]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 122 · Cited by 244
- Authors
- Moulaei, K., Yadegari, A., Baharestani, M., Farzanbakhsh, S., Sabet, B., & Reza Afrash, M.
- Affiliations
- Medical University of Ilam (IR)
- Hamedan University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (IR)
- Shahid Beheshti University (IR)
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-08
- Volume
- 188
- Pages
- 105474
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4396742745
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 122
- Citations by year
- 2026: 105 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 32
- FWCI
- 5.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- generative AI, medical applications, ChatGPT, disease diagnosis, disease prediction, benefits and challenges, large language models, medical question answering
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Delivery of Health Care, Humans
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