Back

Large Language Models in Healthcare Simulation Education: A Bibliometric Analysis with AI-Assisted Screening

Pears, M.; Wadhwa, K.; Payne, S. R.; Konstantinidis, S. T. H.; Biyani, C. S.

2026-06-04 urology
10.64898/2026.06.02.26354722 medRxiv
Show abstract

Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are rapidly reshaping healthcare education and simulation-based training in non-technical skills (NTS), yet no bibliometric analysis has mapped this landscape. We searched seven open-access databases (OpenAlex, PubMed, Europe PMC, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, CORE, DOAJ) for English-language publications from January 2020 to March 2026. From 100,277 initial records, a sequential keyword funnel yielded 830 candidate papers, which were screened by 83 independent Claude Sonnet 4.6 AI agents applying pre-specified inclusion criteria (PRISMA-trAIce compliant; Cohen's kappa = 0.86 pre-reconciliation, 1.0 post-reconciliation). The final AI-verified corpus comprised 551 papers with a compound annual growth rate of 109%, contributions from 2,398 authors across 279 journals in 58 countries, and an h-index of 41. ChatGPT dominated the model landscape (46% of papers), with open-source models virtually absent. Virtual patient chatbots were the leading simulation modality (106 papers). Among NTS domains, communication (145 papers) and decision-making (135 papers) were most studied, whereas teamwork, leadership, situational awareness, and crisis resource management were markedly underrepresented. Only 6 urology-relevant papers were identified, none examining LLM integration within boot camp training formats. The field is growing at extraordinary pace but remains concentrated in a narrow range of NTS domains and a single proprietary model. Critical gaps persist in team-based skills training, open-source model evaluation, and specialty-specific simulation. AI-assisted bibliometric screening using multiple independent agents is feasible, reliable, and scalable, offering a replicable methodology for mapping fast-evolving research fields.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
11.1%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.7%
3
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 32%
5.2%
4
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.6%
5
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.9%
6
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.8%
7
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.3%
8
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.3%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.3%
10
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
50% of probability mass above
11
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
12
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
13
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
14
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
15
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
16
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
17
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.6%
18
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 46%
1.4%
19
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
20
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
21
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 37%
1.3%
22
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
23
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
24
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
25
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
26
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
52 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
27
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
28
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
29
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
30
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%