Leveraging Large Language Models for Patient Engagement: The Power of Conversational AI in Digital Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs) have opened up new opportunities for transforming patient engagement in healthcare through conversational AI. This paper presents an overview of the current landscape of LLMs in healthcare, specifically focusing on their applications in analyzing and generating conversations for improved patient engagement. We showcase the power of LLMs in handling unstructured conversational data through four case studies: (1) analyzing mental health discussions on Reddit, (2) developing a personalized chatbot for cognitive engagement in seniors, (3) summarizing medical conversation datasets, and (4) designing an AI-powered patient engagement system. These case studies demonstrate how LLMs can effectively extract insights and summarizations from unstructured dialogues and engage patients in guided, goal-oriented conversations. Leveraging LLMs for conversational analysis and generation opens new doors for many patient-centered outcomes research opportunities. However, integrating LLMs into healthcare raises important ethical considerations regarding data privacy, bias, transparency, and regulatory compliance. We discuss best practices and guidelines for the responsible development and deployment of LLMs in healthcare settings. Realizing the full potential of LLMs in digital health will require close collaboration between the AI and healthcare professionals communities to address technical challenges and ensure these powerful tools’ safety, efficacy, and equity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".