Abstract
An artificial intelligence (AI)-based conversational large language model (LLM) was launched in November 2022 namely, “ChatGPT”. Despite the wide array of potential applications of LLMs in healthcare education, research and practice, several valid concerns were raised. The current systematic review aimed to investigate the possible utility of ChatGPT and to highlight its limitations in healthcare education, research and practice. Using the PRIMSA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted to retrieve English records in PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar under the term “ChatGPT”. Eligibility criteria included the published research or preprints of any type that discussed ChatGPT in the context of healthcare education, research and practice. A total of 280 records were identified, and following full screening, a total of 60 records were eligible for inclusion. Benefits/applications of ChatGPT were cited in 51/60 (85.0%) records with the most common being the utility in scientific writing followed by benefits in healthcare research (efficient analysis of massive datasets, code generation and rapid concise literature reviews besides utility in drug discovery and development). Benefits in healthcare practice included cost saving, documentation, personalized medicine and improved health literacy. Concerns/possible risks of ChatGPT use were expressed in 58/60 (96.7%) records with the most common being the ethical issues including the risk of bias, plagiarism, copyright issues, transparency issues, legal issues, lack of originality, incorrect responses, limited knowledge, and inaccurate citations. Despite the promising applications of ChatGPT which can result in paradigm shifts in healthcare education, research and practice, the embrace of this application should be done with extreme caution. Specific applications of ChatGPT in health education include the promising utility in personalized learning tools and shift towards more focus on critical thinking and problem-based learning. In healthcare practice, ChatGPT can be valuable for streamlining the workflow and refining personalized medicine. Saving time for the focus on experimental design and enhancing research equity and versatility are the benefits in scientific research. Regarding authorship in scientific articles, as it currently stands, ChatGPT does not qualify to be listed as an author unless the ICMJE/COPE guidelines are revised and amended. An initiative involving all stakeholders involved in healthcare education, research and practice is urgently needed to set a code of ethics and conduct on the responsible practices involving ChatGPT among other LLMs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research received no external funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data supporting this systematic review are available in the original publications, reports and pre-prints that were cited in the reference section. In addition, the analyzed data that were used during the current systematic review are available from the author on reasonable request.
