Actionable companion · Assessment and evidence of learning

From evidence to district action: Impact of large language model (ChatGPT) in healthcare: an umbrella review and evidence synthesis

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. The district actions are proposed applications, not findings or recommendations attributed to the original authors. No additional peer review is asserted.

Evidence and context

Health-professions education context: test transfer to K–12 rather than assuming it.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Background The emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), a Large Language Model (LLM), in healthcare promises to reshape patient care, clinical decision-making, and medical education. This review aims to synthesise research findings to consolidate the implications of ChatGPT integration in healthcare and identify research gaps. Main body The umbrella review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from inception until February 2024. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, no quantitative analysis was performed. Instead, information was extracted, summarised, synthesised, and presented in a narrative form. Two reviewers undertook title, abstract, and full text screening independently. The methodological quality and overall rating of the included reviews were assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklist. The review examined 17 studies, comprising 15 systematic reviews and 2 meta-analyses, on ChatGPT in healthcare, revealing diverse focuses. The AMSTAR-2 assessment identified 5 moderate and 12 low-quality reviews, with deficiencies like study design justification and funding source reporting. The most reported theme that emerged was ChatGPT's use in disease diagnosis or clinical decision-making. While 82.4% of studies focused on its general usage, 17.6% explored unique topics like its role in medical examinations and conducting systematic reviews. Among these, 52.9% targeted general healthcare, with 41.2% focusing on specific domains like radiology, neurosurgery, gastroenterology, public health dentistry, and ophthalmology. ChatGPT’s use for manuscript review or writing was mentioned in 17.6% of reviews. Promising applications include enhancing patient care and clinical decision-making, though ethical, legal, and accuracy concerns require cautious integration. Conclusion We summarise the identified areas in reviews regarding ChatGPT's transformative impact in healthcare, highlighting patient care, decision-making, and medical education. Emphasising the importance of ethical regulations and the involvement of policymakers, we urge further investigation to ensure the reliability of ChatGPT and to promote trust in healthcare and research. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12929-025-01131-z.

A 90-day district pilot

1. Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
2. Days 16–30 · Design. Redesign one low-stakes assessment: require a first attempt, an AI-assisted revision, a source-check log and a short oral explanation. Use the same rubric for the comparison task. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
3. Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
4. Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning, factual accuracy and unaided transfer on a fresh task. Record suspected misconduct separately from demonstrated evidence. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Usman Iqbal; Afifa Tanweer; Annisa Ristya Rahmanti; David Greenfield; Leon Tsung-Ju Lee; Yu-Chuan Jack Li. Impact of large language model (ChatGPT) in healthcare: an umbrella review and evidence synthesis. Journal of Biomedical Science (2025-05-07). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-025-01131-z

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.