Back

Use of large language models by academic hospitalists: results of a multicenter survey

Bressman, E.; Auerbach, A.; Keniston, A.; Jens, C.; Ranji, S.

2026-05-29 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.05.27.26353610 medRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) by clinicians has increased rapidly in recent years, with large language models (LLMs) emerging as tools that can equal clinician diagnostic performance in simulated settings. However, limited data exist regarding physicians use of LLMs in real-world clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of LLM use among practicing hospitalists, identify which LLMs are most commonly utilized, and assess hospitalists' perceptions of the benefits and limitations of LLM use in clinical care. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study of academic hospital medicine faculty across 8 institutions within the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN), a collaborative research consortium. Eligible participants included hospitalists practicing within participating HOMERuN sites during the study period. The survey assessed the frequency of LLM use, types of LLMs used, clinical applications, and physician perceptions regarding usefulness, efficiency, and concerns associated with LLM adoption. Results: 170 respondents (67.1%) reported ever using an LLM in clinical practice. Among LLM users, OpenEvidence was the most used tool (88.9%), followed by ChatGPT (58.5%), Google Gemini (26.9%), and Microsoft Copilot (20.5%). Only a minority of hospitalists reported using LLMs daily while seeing patients. The most common use cases of LLMs were answering diagnostic (77.1%) and management (77.6%) questions. A majority also reported using LLMs to identify or summarize primary literature (60.0%). Lack of trust in outputs (49.8%), uncertainty around institutional policies (48.6%), and lack of access to secure applications (43.1%) were cited as the most frequent barriers to using LLMs in practice. Discussion: The use of LLMs in clinical practice is already widespread, though regular or daily use is not yet typical. Concerns regarding reliability, patient privacy, and safe integration into clinical workflows remain significant barriers to broader adoption. The responsible implementation of LLMs in hospital medicine will require addressing these barriers.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.4%
3
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.9%
4
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.9%
5
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
6
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
7
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
8
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
9
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
10
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
11
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.5%
12
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.9%
13
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
14
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
16
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 63%
1.4%
17
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
18
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
19
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
20
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
21
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
BMC Medical Education
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
23
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
25
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
26
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
27
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
28
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
29
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
30
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%