Search

Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly advanced since the transformer architecture was introduced in 2017, with systems such as GPT-3, GPT-4, Med-PaLM, and Claude increasingly explored for applications in medical education, clinical documentation, decision support, and patient communication, raising both optimism and concerns regarding safety and reliability. This systematic review synthesizes evidence across studies retrieved from PubMed, arXiv, ACL Anthology, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar that empirically evaluated LLMs in clinical settings using quantitative performance metrics, with risk of bias assessed using an adapted PROBAST framework for machine learning research. Findings show that LLMs achieve 60–90% accuracy on USMLE-style examinations, with leading models such as GPT-4 and Med-PaLM 2 reaching or surpassing passing thresholds, while in clinical documentation tasks they can reduce physician workload by approximately 30–50% in generating outputs such as discharge summaries, though human review remains consistently required. Performance in clinical decision support is more variable and specialty-dependent, and hallucination rates ranging from 5–30% have been reported, alongside persistent issues of bias and overconfidence in incorrect outputs. Overall, while LLMs demonstrate strong capabilities in structured medical knowledge tasks and documentation support, current limitations including hallucinations, bias, and lack of prospective clinical validation prevent safe autonomous deployment, making clinician oversight and robust safety safeguards essential for any clinical use.

Healthcare administration is document-intensive, communication-heavy, and increasingly dependent on digital systems that require timely synthesis of clinical and operational information. Generative artificial intelligence has been proposed as a potential means of reducing administrative workload across documentation, reporting, patient communication, governance, and workflow coordination. This systematic review examined applications of generative artificial intelligence across five healthcare administrative domains: documentation support, operational reporting, patient communication, governance dashboards, and workflow automation. The review aimed to characterize reported use cases, model types, evaluation approaches, implementation barriers, and evidence maturity from 2017 to 2025. A PRISMA 2020-compliant search strategy was applied to PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science for studies published between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2025. Screening was conducted in duplicate, and eligible studies were synthesized narratively by administrative domain. Documentation support was the most mature domain, particularly for clinical summarization, discharge summaries, patient-message drafting, and document classification. Operational reporting and governance dashboards were emerging areas, while patient communication and workflow automation showed diverse prototypes but limited prospective validation. Common challenges included hallucination, privacy, bias, regulatory uncertainty, integration burden, and limited evidence of real-world administrative impact. Generative artificial intelligence appears technically capable of supporting multiple healthcare administrative tasks, but evidence remains uneven across domains. Real-world impact, safety, scalability, and governance require stronger evaluation before these systems can be relied upon for high-stakes administrative decision-making.