Large Language Models in Nursing Education: Concept Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in nursing education, yet their conceptual foundations remain abstract and underexplored. This concept analysis addresses the need for clarity by examining the relevance, meaning, contextual applications, and defining attributes of LLMs in nursing education, using Rodgers' evolutionary method. Objective: This paper aims to explore the evolutionary concept of LLMs in nursing education by providing a concept analysis through a comprehensive review of the existing published literature. Methods: Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis method was used. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google Scholar were used to search for relevant publications. A total of 41 papers were included based on inclusion criteria that focused on studies published in English within the last 5 years to ensure relevance to the current use of LLMs exclusively in nursing education. Studies were excluded if they focused on clinical nursing applications, were not available in English, lacked full-text accessibility, or examined other artificial intelligence (AI) technologies unrelated to LLMs (eg, robotics). Results: As a result of this analysis, a proposed definition of LLMs in nursing education has been developed, describing them as accessible, personalized, innovative, and interactive tools that create revolutionary learning experiences, often leading to enhanced cognitive and skill development and improvement in learning and teaching quality. Conclusions: This concept analysis highlights LLMs' transformative potential to enhance access to resources, support individualized learning, and augment nursing education. While promising, careful attention must be given to their limitations and ethical implications, ensuring their integration aligns with the values and goals of nursing education, particularly in specialized areas such as graduate nursing programs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".