Cited by 434Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning in Healthcare

The application of large language models in medicine: A scoping review

Open access
Meng, Xiangbin, Yan, Xiangyu, Zhang, Kuo, Liu, Da, Cui, Xiaojuan, Yang, Yaodong, Zhang, Muhan, Cao, Chunxia +17 more·2024·iScience

Abstract

This study systematically reviewed the application of large language models (LLMs) in medicine, analyzing 550 selected studies from a vast literature search. LLMs like ChatGPT transformed healthcare by enhancing diagnostics, medical writing, education, and project management. They assisted in drafting medical documents, creating training simulations, and streamlining research processes. Despite their growing utility in assisted diagnosis and improving doctor-patient communication, challenges persisted, including limitations in contextual understanding and the risk of over-reliance. The surge in LLM-related research indicated a focus on medical writing, diagnostics, and patient communication, but highlighted the need for careful integration, considering validation, ethical concerns, and the balance with traditional medical practice. Future research directions suggested a focus on multimodal LLMs, deeper algorithmic understanding, and ensuring responsible, effective use in healthcare.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.isci.2024.109713

Cites

112 of 119 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 are increasingly used by healthcare professionals and patients for medical information synthesis.

    “Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used by healthcare professionals and patients for medical information synthesis.”
  • Existing reviews of LLMs in healthcare have largely neglected a deeper analysis of explainability methods.

    “Existing reviews of LLMs in healthcare have largely neglected a deeper analysis of explainability methods.”

    From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Discussion identifies model interpretability as a challenge and briefly mentions SHAP, but it does not assess whether existing healthcare LLM reviews have neglected explainability methods. Searches for explainability methods and gaps in previous reviews found no passage making that comparison. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [66]Thirunavukarasu A.J. Ting D.S.J. Elangovan K. Gutierrez L. Tan T.F. Ting D.S.W. Large language models in medicine Nat. Med. 29 2023 1930 1940 37460753

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meng, X., Yan, X., Zhang, K., Liu, D., Cui, X., Yang, Y., Zhang, M., Cao, C., Wang, J., Wang, X., Gao, J., Wang, Y.-G.-S., Ji, J.-M., Qiu, Z., Li, M., Qian, C., Guo, T., Ma, S., Wang, Z., Guo, Z., Lei, Y., Shao, C., Wang, W., Fan, H., & Tang, Y.-D.
Affiliations
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Tianjin University (CN)
  • Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
  • Hebei Medical University (CN)
  • Peking University Third Hospital (CN)
  • Beihang University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Fan, Haojun
  • Tang, Yi-Da
Venue
iScience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-05
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
109713
ISSN
2589-0042 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4395052272
Cited by
414
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 188 · 2025: 188 · 2024: 38
FWCI
9.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • iScience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China Stem Cell and Translational Research (2020YFC2004705)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (81825003, 82270376, 91957123)
  • China Scholarship Council (CSCF2021A04)
  • CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences
  • Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences (2021-I2M-5-003, T-B-119)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China
  • Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, Adminitrative Commission of Zhongguancun Science Park
  • Beijing Nova Program (Z201100006820002)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
large language models, ChatGPT, medical applications of AI, medical diagnostics, medical writing, medical education, training simulation, physician-patient communication, overreliance on AI, multimodal large language models, ethics of AI in healthcare

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