Abstract
Background:
The emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), a Large Language Model (LLM), in healthcare promises to reshape patient care, clinical decision-making, and medical education. This review aims to synthesise research findings to consolidate the implications of ChatGPT integration in healthcare and identify research gaps.
Main body:
The umbrella review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from inception until February 2024. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, no quantitative analysis was performed. Instead, information was extracted, summarised, synthesised, and presented in a narrative form. Two reviewers undertook title, abstract, and full text screening independently. The methodological quality and overall rating of the included reviews were assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklist. The review examined 17 studies, comprising 15 systematic reviews and 2 meta-analyses, on ChatGPT in healthcare, revealing diverse focuses. The AMSTAR-2 assessment identified 5 moderate and 12 low-quality reviews, with deficiencies like study design justification and funding source reporting. The most reported theme that emerged was ChatGPT's use in disease diagnosis or clinical decision-making. While 82.4% of studies focused on its general usage, 17.6% explored unique topics like its role in medical examinations and conducting systematic reviews. Among these, 52.9% targeted general healthcare, with 41.2% focusing on specific domains like radiology, neurosurgery, gastroenterology, public health dentistry, and ophthalmology. ChatGPT’s use for manuscript review or writing was mentioned in 17.6% of reviews. Promising applications include enhancing patient care and clinical decision-making, though ethical, legal, and accuracy concerns require cautious integration.
Conclusion:
We summarise the identified areas in reviews regarding ChatGPT's transformative impact in healthcare, highlighting patient care, decision-making, and medical education. Emphasising the importance of ethical regulations and the involvement of policymakers, we urge further investigation to ensure the reliability of ChatGPT and to promote trust in healthcare and research.
The emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), a Large Language Model (LLM), in healthcare promises to reshape patient care, clinical decision-making, and medical education. This review aims to synthesise research findings to consolidate the implications of ChatGPT integration in healthcare and identify research gaps.
Main body:
The umbrella review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from inception until February 2024. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, no quantitative analysis was performed. Instead, information was extracted, summarised, synthesised, and presented in a narrative form. Two reviewers undertook title, abstract, and full text screening independently. The methodological quality and overall rating of the included reviews were assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklist. The review examined 17 studies, comprising 15 systematic reviews and 2 meta-analyses, on ChatGPT in healthcare, revealing diverse focuses. The AMSTAR-2 assessment identified 5 moderate and 12 low-quality reviews, with deficiencies like study design justification and funding source reporting. The most reported theme that emerged was ChatGPT's use in disease diagnosis or clinical decision-making. While 82.4% of studies focused on its general usage, 17.6% explored unique topics like its role in medical examinations and conducting systematic reviews. Among these, 52.9% targeted general healthcare, with 41.2% focusing on specific domains like radiology, neurosurgery, gastroenterology, public health dentistry, and ophthalmology. ChatGPT’s use for manuscript review or writing was mentioned in 17.6% of reviews. Promising applications include enhancing patient care and clinical decision-making, though ethical, legal, and accuracy concerns require cautious integration.
Conclusion:
We summarise the identified areas in reviews regarding ChatGPT's transformative impact in healthcare, highlighting patient care, decision-making, and medical education. Emphasising the importance of ethical regulations and the involvement of policymakers, we urge further investigation to ensure the reliability of ChatGPT and to promote trust in healthcare and research.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 45 |
| Pages (from-to) | 1-19 |
| Number of pages | 19 |
| Journal | Journal of Biomedical Science |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2025 |
