Back

Systematic literature review of the use of generative AI in health economic evaluation

Sharp, S.; Lokuge, K.; Elvidge, J.; Hudson, T.; Dawoud, D.

2025-04-26 health economics
10.1101/2025.04.25.25326412 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesGenerative AI (GenAI) has emerged in the current decade as a paradigm-shifting technology with potential to transform the process of health economic evaluation (HEE), a resource-intensive element of health technology assessment. This systematic literature review aims to identify the current applications of GenAI in HEE and its potential advantages, challenges and limitations. MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, EconLit, Cochrane Library, International HTA database and Epistemonikos for English-language, publicly available literature without date restrictions, and hand-searched the ISPOR presentations database (2023 to 2025) for articles describing or investigating the use of GenAI in HEE. Quantitative data on performance outcomes were collected along with qualitative data on stakeholder opinions and experience. ResultsWe identified 25 eligible studies: 18 primary studies, 6 narrative reviews and 1 expert opinion piece. The primary studies comprised 16 case studies and 2 qualitative studies. Over 90% of studies were conference abstracts published in 2024 from commercial authors. The emphasis across studies was on early exploratory research, particularly model replication. Where reported, execution time (3 studies), accuracy and error rate (7 studies), and user experience (4 studies) showed promising results across multiple use cases but there is a high risk of bias inherent in relying on conference abstracts with limited reporting, which warrants cautious interpretation. ConclusionThe current evidence landscape has revealed potential benefits of GenAI across multiple applications to health economics, but only sparse dissemination of early case study findings via conference submissions. Further research is needed to validate all use cases and to address perceived barriers to implementation.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Value in Health
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
31.4%
2
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.0%
3
Medical Decision Making
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
4
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 4%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 28%
5.6%
6
Systematic Reviews
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
7
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
8
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
9
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
10
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
11
BMC Medical Research Methodology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
12
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
Health Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
14
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.7%
15
Clinical Trials
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
16
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
17
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
18
Journal of Public Health
24 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.0%
19
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
20
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
21
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
22
BMJ
51 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
23
Research Synthesis Methods
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
24
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
25
Environmental Research Letters
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
26
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%