Search

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into clinical healthcare systems represents a transformative shift in how data analytics, decision support, and operational infrastructure are conceptualized and deployed. This narrative review synthesizes recent advancements in LLMs within healthcare, focusing on their roles in enhancing clinical analytics, infrastructural frameworks, and oversight mechanisms while addressing inherent risk dynamics. Drawing from peer-reviewed literature, we examine how LLMs facilitate the processing of vast unstructured clinical data, such as electronic health records and patient narratives, to generate actionable insights that inform diagnostics, treatment planning, and resource allocation. Key infrastructural elements include scalable deployment pipelines that integrate LLMs with existing hospital information systems, enabling real-time analytics and predictive modeling without disrupting legacy workflows. Oversight is emphasized through regulatory frameworks that ensure ethical deployment, data privacy compliance, and bias mitigation, as LLMs amplify risks related to misinformation, algorithmic opacity, and equitable access in diverse clinical settings. Risk dynamics are explored in terms of model hallucinations, dependency on training data quality, and potential for exacerbating healthcare disparities if not properly governed. The review highlights systems-level analytics where LLMs contribute to closed-loop healthcare ecosystems, from data ingestion and inference to feedback-driven recalibration, fostering adaptive intelligence in clinical decision-making. For instance, LLMs have been adapted for tasks like text summarization, diagnostic reasoning, and patient communication, outperforming traditional methods in efficiency while requiring robust validation to maintain clinical fidelity. We underscore the need for interdisciplinary collaboration between clinicians, data scientists, and policymakers to harness LLMs' potential in optimizing healthcare delivery. By synthesizing cross-study evidence, this review proposes an original interpretive framework for LLM-enabled healthcare systems, structured around data-model-deployment-governance cycles, to guide future implementations. Ultimately, while LLMs promise enhanced analytics and infrastructural resilience, their clinical adoption demands vigilant oversight to balance innovation with patient safety and ethical integrity. This synthesis not only maps the current landscape but also identifies infrastructural gaps in scaling LLMs for equitable, high-stakes clinical environments, paving the way for more resilient healthcare analytics paradigms.

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.

Clinical trial recruitment is hindered by slow, costly, and labor-intensive processes, particularly due to the complexity of eligibility criteria often written in free text. This systematic review examines the use of large language models (LLMs) for matching clinical trial eligibility criteria to electronic health records (EHR). It evaluates zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuned LLM approaches, comparing their strengths, limitations, and deployment readiness in supporting patient-trial matching. Thirty-three studies published from 2017 to 2026 were included, with findings showing that zero-shot prompting is most adaptable for simple criteria, few-shot prompting offers consistent reasoning for ambiguous criteria, and fine-tuned models excel in task-specific performance but require labeled data and are less portable. The review concludes that no single approach is optimal for all trial screening tasks, and hybrid workflows combining various methods with human verification are most suitable for 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.

Asynchronous digital communication with patients has become a routine component of modern healthcare delivery. The rapid growth of patient portals, chatbots, and digital front-door tools has created opportunities for more responsive care, while also increasing communication workload for clinical teams. This systematic review examined artificial intelligence applications in digital patient communication from 2017 to 2026. The review focused on portal message triage, chatbot support, care navigation, automated response drafting, and patient engagement analytics. A PRISMA 2020-compliant review was conducted using structured searches of PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science. Records were screened by two reviewers, with data extracted on communication domain, AI approach, clinical setting, evaluation strategy, safety reporting, and implementation maturity. The literature was dominated by studies of chatbot support and portal message triage, with a growing body of work on large language model-enabled response drafting. Care navigation and patient engagement analytics were less frequently evaluated, and most studies emphasized technical performance, user satisfaction, or feasibility rather than health outcomes or workload reduction in real-world settings. AI for patient communication appears technically promising in isolated tasks, particularly message classification, chatbot interaction, and draft response generation. However, evidence remains limited regarding safe, equitable, and effective deployment across integrated communication workflows.