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

50% of probability mass above

"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.