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.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has emerged as a transformative force in healthcare systems, enabling advanced analytics, personalized interventions, and streamlined governance frameworks. This narrative review synthesizes recent literature on GenAI’s integration into healthcare infrastructures, emphasizing systems governance, safety protocols, and accountability mechanisms. We explore how GenAI enhances clinical decision-making, data analytics, and closed-loop systems while addressing ethical, regulatory, and operational challenges.At the core of healthcare systems, GenAI facilitates intelligent analytics by generating synthetic data for training models, simulating patient outcomes, and optimizing resource allocation. Governance frameworks are critical for ensuring responsible deployment, with studies highlighting the need for institutional guidelines that mitigate risks such as bias amplification and data privacy breaches. Safety considerations encompass algorithmic transparency, error detection in generative outputs, and human oversight in clinical loops. Accountability extends to lifecycle management, from model development to post-deployment monitoring, as evidenced by global initiatives and regional models like those in the GCC.The review delineates the landscape of GenAI applications in healthcare analytics, including predictive modeling for chronic disease management and real-time decision support. We propose an original systems-level framing that integrates data ingestion, inference generation, intervention deployment, and feedback recalibration under governance umbrellas. This synthesis reveals gaps in current infrastructures, such as the lack of standardized AI guardians for information overload and the challenges of scaling enterprise AI.In examining intelligent clinical decision systems, we highlight architectures that fuse GenAI with electronic health records (EHRs) for closed-loop operations, where generative models inform adaptive interventions. Ethical considerations are woven throughout, advocating for principles adapted from military contexts to healthcare. The adoption of GenAI in US hospitals underscores its potential for inpatient summaries and chronic care, yet calls for regulatory oversight to align with Helsinki declarations.Ultimately, this review positions GenAI as a cornerstone for accountable healthcare systems, urging interdisciplinary collaboration to balance innovation with safety. By synthesizing governance models, safety protocols, and accountability structures, we provide a roadmap for sustainable integration, fostering equitable health outcomes in an AI-augmented era.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare systems and analytics represents a transformative shift toward more efficient, personalized, and predictive clinical practices. However, this evolution necessitates robust governance frameworks to ensure transparency, mitigate biases, and enable continuous lifecycle monitoring. This narrative review synthesizes recent literature on AI governance in healthcare, focusing on systems-level infrastructure and clinical analytics. Drawing from peer-reviewed publications, we examine how AI tools enhance healthcare delivery through data-driven insights while addressing ethical, regulatory, and operational challenges.Central to AI governance is transparency, which involves making algorithmic processes interpretable to clinicians and stakeholders. Studies highlight the need for explainable AI models in clinical decision-making, where opaque “black-box” systems can undermine trust and accountability. For instance, frameworks for implementing machine learning in healthcare emphasize ethical considerations, such as disclosing model limitations and decision rationales to prevent misinformed clinical actions. Bias mitigation emerges as a critical pillar, with research demonstrating how algorithmic biases in electronic health records can perpetuate health disparities, particularly among underrepresented populations. Strategies include proactive monitoring of algorithms for equity, incorporating diverse datasets during development, and post-deployment audits to detect and correct biases.Lifecycle monitoring models ensure sustained performance and safety of AI systems over time. This encompasses ongoing evaluation, recalibration, and governance structures that adapt to evolving clinical environments. Nationwide initiatives propose AI assurance laboratories to standardize monitoring, while institutional guidelines advocate for step-by-step implementation to avoid “AI winters” caused by unaddressed failures. In analytics contexts, large AI models facilitate health informatics by processing vast datasets for predictive analytics, yet they require governance to handle challenges like data privacy and model drift.The review structures its synthesis around healthcare systems’ end-to-end loops: from data ingestion to intelligent decision support and closed-loop interventions. It integrates cross-study analyses to propose original interpretive models for governance, emphasizing human-AI collaboration in clinical workflows. Key findings underscore the importance of multidisciplinary approaches, combining technical, ethical, and regulatory perspectives to foster responsible AI adoption. Ultimately, effective governance not only enhances patient outcomes but also builds public trust in AI-driven healthcare. This synthesis highlights gaps in current practices and advocates for integrative monitoring systems to realize AI’s full potential in equitable healthcare delivery.

The integration of artificial intelligence into clinical decision support systems offers improved diagnostic accuracy and efficiency, but the opacity of many machine learning models raises concerns about trust, accountability, and regulatory compliance. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has been proposed to address this by making model predictions interpretable to clinicians; however, its true clinical value remains uncertain, and evaluation has not kept pace with methodological development. This systematic review aimed to identify XAI methods used in clinical decision support systems, assess how they are evaluated with clinicians, and determine whether explanations improve diagnostic accuracy, trust, mental models, and efficiency. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and Scopus for studies published between 2017 and 2024. Eligible studies included original research evaluating XAI in clinical decision support systems with clinician participants and reporting quantitative or qualitative outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using adapted QUADAS-2 and ROBIS tools, and findings were synthesized narratively with subgroup analyses. From 2,847 records, 68 studies were included. The most common XAI methods were SHAP-based feature attribution (38%), saliency or heatmap methods (29%), concept-based approaches such as TCAV (15%), and counterfactual or example-based explanations (12%). Radiology was the dominant field (54%), followed by dermatology (18%) and pathology (12%). Evaluation approaches were highly inconsistent, with few validated instruments and most studies relying on Likert-scale trust measures or qualitative feedback. Only 16% of studies showed improved diagnostic accuracy with explanations, 67% showed no significant effect, and 17% reported reduced accuracy due to over-reliance or misinterpretation. Although 82% of studies reported increased clinician trust, trust rarely correlated with actual diagnostic performance. Overall, while XAI methods are widely studied in clinical decision support, their evaluation is inconsistent and their benefits are limited. Explanations tend to increase clinician trust without reliably improving diagnostic accuracy, and may sometimes worsen performance, highlighting a trust–accuracy gap that poses important safety concerns for clinical deployment.

Federated learning (FL) is promoted as a privacy-preserving method for training machine learning models across healthcare institutions without sharing patient data, with growing use in medical imaging, electronic health records, and rare disease research. This critical review examines FL studies from 2017–2024, focusing on privacy guarantees, statistical heterogeneity, communication efficiency, and real-world clinical deployment. A structured search of PubMed, IEEE Xplore, arXiv, and Google Scholar was conducted using relevant FL and healthcare terms, including studies addressing privacy, heterogeneity, communication, or deployment. Reported privacy guarantees are often overstated, with most studies relying on FedAvg without differential privacy. Statistical heterogeneity in non-IID settings remains largely unresolved. Fewer than 5% of studies report real-world deployment, typically at very small scale. A significant gap exists between FL research and clinical application. Current methods fall short of healthcare-grade privacy and real-world constraints, limiting readiness for high-stakes clinical use.

Postoperative complications including SSI (2–20%), VTE (1–5%), and respiratory failure (1–8%) significantly increase morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and readmissions. This systematic review assessed machine learning models predicting these outcomes, their performance, external validation, and clinical deployment. A PRISMA-based search (2017–2024) identified 32 eligible studies. Models such as random forest and XGBoost showed AUROC ranges of 0.70–0.85 for SSI, 0.75–0.90 for VTE (outperforming Caprini scores), and 0.75–0.88 for respiratory failure. However, fewer than 20% of studies included external validation and less than 5% reported clinical deployment. Overall, while machine learning models show strong retrospective performance, limited validation and minimal real-world implementation remain major barriers to clinical translation.

Suicidality and depression are major global health burdens, with over 700,000 suicide deaths annually and ~280 million people affected by major depressive disorder. Early risk prediction could support prevention, but traditional methods show limited accuracy. This PRISMA-compliant systematic review evaluated machine learning models for predicting suicidality and depression across electronic health records, social media, and wearable sensor data, focusing on performance, unimodal vs multimodal approaches, and ethical reporting. Searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore, arXiv, and ACM Digital Library identified eligible studies. EHR-based models showed AUROC 0.70–0.85 for suicide attempt prediction, social media models 0.70–0.80 for suicidal ideation, and wearable sensor models lower performance (0.65–0.75). Multimodal approaches improved performance by 5–10% over unimodal models. However, fewer than 20% of studies reported ethical considerations such as privacy, bias, or deployment safeguards. Overall, machine learning shows moderate-to-good predictive performance, with multimodal models performing best, but ethical reporting remains critically insufficient for clinical translation.