ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns
ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI)-based conversational large language model (LLM). The potential applications of LLMs in health care education, research, and practice could be promising if the associated valid concerns are proactively examined and addressed. The current systematic review aimed to investigate the utility of ChatGPT in health care education, research, and practice and to highlight its potential limitations. Using the PRIMSA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted to
Record details
Published: 19 March 2023
Source: OpenAlex
Category: Research
Topics: Healthcare · Children & education · Finance, VC & PE
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
The rise of <scp>ChatGPT</scp>: Exploring its potential in medical education
OpenAlex · 14 March 2023
Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation:
OpenAlex · 7 March 2023
The Role of ChatGPT, Generative Language Models, and Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: A Conversation With ChatGPT and a Call for Papers
OpenAlex · 2 March 2023
Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing
OpenAlex · 19 February 2023
What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students
OpenAlex · 19 April 2023
Shaping the Future of Education: Exploring the Potential and Consequences of AI and ChatGPT in Educational Settings
OpenAlex · 7 July 2023
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (19 March 2023), “ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns,” evidence record 9268, https://ethics.ai/record/9268 (originally published by OpenAlex).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.