Systematic literature review of the use of generative AI in health economic evaluation
Sharp, S.; Lokuge, K.; Elvidge, J.; Hudson, T.; Dawoud, D.
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.
Similar papers in this journal
- Validity, Reliability, and Framing Effects in Equity-Efficiency Trade-Off Studies: A Systematic Review 92%
- Loon Lens 1.0 Validation: Agentic AI for Title and Abstract Screening in Systematic Literature Reviews 92%
- Emerging Therapies for COVID-19: the value of information from more clinical trials 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- ‘Leading from the front’ implementation strategies increase the success of influenza vaccination drives among healthcare workers: A reanalysis of Systematic Review evidence using Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) 94%
- Educational interventions delivered to prescribing advisers to influence primary care prescribing: a very low-cost pragmatic randomised trial using routine data from OpenPrescribing.net 92%
- Spatio-temporal modelling of referrals to outpatient respiratory clinics in the integrated care system of the Morecambe Bay area, England 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 94%
- A novel decision modeling framework for health policy analyses when outcomes are influenced by social and disease processes 92%
- Multilevel and Quasi Monte Carlo methods for the calculation of the Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 93%
- GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines 93%
- Protocol for Development of a Reporting Guideline for Causal and Counterfactual Prediction Models 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 93%
- Analysis of the Health Economics Portfolio Funded by the National Institutes of Health in Response to Published Guidance 92%
- A flexible formula for incorporating distributive concerns into cost-effectiveness analyses: priority weights 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.