Search

The medical industry in India has undergone substantial evolution driven by progress in technology and infrastructure. Yet, prominent hurdles remain when addressing critical problems like inadequate medical infrastructure for the nation's massive population, restricted accessibility, a deficit of qualified practitioners, and high-quality services. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based interventions offer the possibility to ease the burden on the Indian medical network; nevertheless, incorporating reliable AI into this domain is still obstructed by moral and legal barriers. The objective of this research is to critically analyze the contemporary state of AI system engineering in Indian medical care and its alignment with the moral and legal dimensions of AI, while also pinpointing the obstacles and prospects for implementing reliable AI within the Indian medical domain. This investigation assessed 15 papers chosen from an initial pool of 1136 papers collected across two digital databases, PubMed and Google Scholar, alongside project sites. This inquiry utilizes the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The findings indicate that current publications primarily deployed traditional machine learning (ML) models and artificial neural networks (ANNs) for diverse operations, including drug discovery, disease monitoring networks, early sickness identification and diagnostic precision, and medical resource administration in India. This analysis uncovers a deficiency in the integration of reliable AI within Indian medical care and various obstructions linked to it. It examines pathways for engineering reliable AI within Indian medical environments, prioritizing patient protection, information confidentiality, and adherence to moral and statutory criteria.

This research undertook an assessment of Large Language Models (LLMs) within the domain of clinical diagnostics, specifically investigating their capacity to interpret symptom-centered inputs and generate precise clinical assessments. The investigation focused on evaluating several prominent architectures—including GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini, o1 Preview, and GPT-3.5—to gauge their proficiency in identifying clinical conditions solely from presented symptomatology. To guarantee clinical validity and appropriateness, symptom profiles were compiled from verified medical literature. Each architecture underwent testing within standardized environments to quantify diagnostic accuracy, precision, recall, and underlying logical processing. Specialized clinical scenarios were structured to examine performance boundaries across both routine and critical diagnostic conditions. The findings indicated that GPT-4 delivered the highest overall diagnostic accuracy, displaying a strong synergy with established medical logic. Conversely, Gemini demonstrated superior performance in high-stakes environments where exact decision-making is vital. Both GPT-4o and o1 Preview presented equitable metrics, maintaining a stable balance between precision and recall while managing real-time diagnostic scenarios. While possessing less advanced capabilities, GPT-3.5 remained functional for standard diagnostic duties. Ultimately, this investigation outlines the current capabilities and constraints of utilizing LLMs for clinical determination. Even though architectures like GPT-4 and Gemini show significant capability, critical barriers regarding data confidentiality, ethical protocols, and training bias correction must still be overcome. These insights offer strategic directions for the ethical incorporation of LLMs into diagnostic frameworks to optimize patient care outcomes.