Deploying LLMs in highly regulated industries like Healthcare and Finance A Comprehensive Review

Browse all previoiusly published AI Tutorials here.

Table of Contents

1. Data Privacy and Compliance

2. Deployment Strategies On-Premises Cloud and Edge

3. Explainability and Interpretability

4. Human-in-the-Loop Considerations

5. Industry Applications and Case Studies 5.1. Healthcare Applications 5.2. Finance Applications

6. Conclusion

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being rapidly adopted in highly regulated industries like healthcare and finance, where they promise to enhance efficiency and insights. However, their deployment must navigate strict privacy laws, compliance requirements, technical constraints, and the need for trustworthiness. This review synthesizes recent findings (2024–2025) on how to responsibly deploy LLMs in these domains.

Data Privacy and Compliance

Ensuring data privacy and regulatory compliance is paramount when deploying LLMs in healthcare and finance:

• GDPR (EU) – The GDPR imposes strict rules on processing personal data. LLMs often train on vast internet text that may include personal information, raising concerns under GDPR. Models can memorize personal data, which may legally classify the model itself as personal data. Developers are required to implement “data protection by design” (Article 25) – i.e., technical and organizational measures to safeguard privacy (e.g. resist data extraction or membership inference attacks). High-risk AI applications also necessitate a Data Protection Impact Assessment (Article 35). Non-compliance can invite heavy fines up to 4% of global turnover. In practice, this means LLM systems must prevent leaking sensitive training data (e.g. via prompt leaks or model inversion) to align with GDPR and related EU guidance. Recent research emphasizes making models resilient to privacy attacks as a legal imperative.

• HIPAA (US) – In healthcare, LLMs may handle Protected Health Information (PHI), so they must follow HIPAA regulations on privacy and security. Models trained on clinical data could inadvertently emit PHI. As with GDPR, there is a risk of membership inference or reconstruction of patient data from model outputs. Compliance requires de-identifying patient data or keeping all PHI within controlled environments. For example, a hospital deploying an LLM needs to ensure any patient data used for model training or prompts is either anonymized or remains on HIPAA-compliant infrastructure. Privacy-preserving techniques like differential privacy and federated learning are being explored to allow model improvement on sensitive data without leaking specifics, albeit with some trade-off in accuracy.

• Financial Regulations (e.g. Basel III) – In finance, LLMs must adhere to industry regulations such as Basel III (which governs bank capital requirements), anti-money laundering (AML) laws, and data protection rules (like GDPR for client data in EU). LLMs can assist with compliance by interpreting complex regulatory texts. A 2024 case study showed an LLM (GPT-4) distilling the verbose Basel III regulations into a concise mathematical framework and even generating code for risk calculations. This demonstrates potential in automating compliance tasks. However, financial institutions also face model risk management guidelines – regulators expect models (including AI) to be validated, explainable, and monitored to prevent undue risk. Any use of customer data in an LLM must comply with privacy laws and bank secrecy regulations. For instance, EU’s draft AI Act is poised to classify many finance AI applications as “high-risk,” mandating transparency and human oversight. In summary, banks adopting LLMs must carefully sandbox their use: data should be handled according to GDPR/SEC/FINRA rules, and outputs must not violate consumer protection or fairness laws.

Privacy-Preserving Solutions: To reconcile LLM utility with privacy, current research explores several techniques. Differential Privacy (DP) adds statistical noise to training to prevent memorizing exact data points, mitigating leakage of individual records. However, DP can degrade model performance, especially for the precise outputs often needed in medicine or finance. Federated Learning (FL) allows models to train on distributed data (e.g. across hospitals or banks) without centralizing sensitive data. Each site updates the model locally and shares only model weight updates, reducing raw data exposure. Cryptographic approaches (like homomorphic encryption or secure enclaves) can also ensure that even if an LLM runs on cloud hardware, the data remains encrypted or isolated during processing. These guardrails, combined with strict access controls and audit logs, help align LLM deployments with GDPR, HIPAA, and similar regulations.

Deployment Strategies On-Premises, Cloud, and Edge

Choosing the right deployment setup for LLMs involves balancing security, latency, compliance, and cost:

• On-Premises Deployment: Deploying LLMs on an organization’s own servers offers maximum control over data. In healthcare, on-prem deployments keep patient data within hospital firewalls, aiding HIPAA and GDPR compliance (no third-party cloud sees the data). This approach avoids the “opaque commercial interests” and data residency issues that come with cloud providers. However, the trade-off is high cost and complexity. State-of-the-art LLMs are resource-intensive; for example, a 65-billion-parameter model may require multiple high-end GPUs (e.g. four 80GB A100 GPUs) just to run inference. Purchasing and maintaining such hardware, along with power and cooling costs, is expensive. Organizations must also hire specialized staff to manage the infrastructure. On-prem LLMs can also suffer from slower iteration if scaling out is limited. Thus, on-prem is often favored for absolute data control in sensitive cases or where latency must be low and predictable (e.g. within a hospital network), but smaller models or substantial investment in infrastructure might be necessary.

• Cloud Deployment: Hosting LLMs in the cloud (e.g. using AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud) provides scalability and easier maintenance. Cloud providers offer specialized hardware (TPUs, GPUs) and managed services for LLM training and inference, which can accelerate development. This is cost-effective for intermittent workloads and allows virtually unlimited scaling. However, security and compliance are major concerns in regulated industries. Sending sensitive data (patient records, financial transactions) to a cloud LLM can violate data residency laws unless robust safeguards are in place. The GDPR, for example, would require that any personal data leaving the organization’s premises be properly de-identified or anonymized. In practice, fully scrubbing all personal identifiers is non-trivial – as one study noted, without reliable automated de-identification, hospitals might resort to manual review of every output to ensure no PHI is leaked. This overhead erodes the convenience of cloud deployment. Another concern is multi-tenancy and trust: organizations must trust the cloud provider’s security. Many financial firms and hospitals mitigate risk by using hybrid architectures – keeping critical data on-prem and using cloud for non-sensitive components or using encryption schemes when data is processed in cloud. In summary, cloud LLMs offer scalability and lower upfront cost but require diligent compliance measures (data encryption, strict access controls, contractual agreements to meet HIPAA/GDPR standards, etc.) before they can be used with sensitive data.
  

• Edge Deployment: In some cases, LLMs can be deployed at the edge – on local devices such as hospital workstations, mobile devices, or branch office servers. Running LLMs on edge devices keeps data on-site (or on-device), greatly enhancing privacy since user data need not leave the source. This can address both latency and confidentiality: responses are faster (no round-trip to a cloud server) and sensitive data stays local by design (ExecuTorch Alpha: Taking LLMs and AI to the Edge with Our Community and Partners | PyTorch). Edge deployments are especially attractive for applications like medical dictation or financial customer service kiosks, where connectivity might be limited or data sovereignty is required. The challenge is that edge devices have limited compute and memory. Emerging solutions focus on model optimization: quantization, distillation, and efficient runtime libraries. For example, PyTorch’s ExecuTorch is an edge inference engine that supports running large models like Llama 2 on mobile/edge hardware by leveraging quantization (reducing model precision/size). In April 2024, the PyTorch team demonstrated full LLM support on smartphones by compressing models and collaborating with chip vendors. These techniques allow reasonably capable LLMs to run on devices like phones or IoT gateways. The trade-off is that edge models might be smaller or slightly less capable than their cloud counterparts due to hardware limits. Additionally, managing software updates across many devices and ensuring each is secure can be complex. Despite these challenges, edge deployment is seeing growth for use-cases requiring data sovereignty, low latency, and offline availability, and is often combined with federated learning (each device runs the model locally and contributes back to a global model without sharing raw data).

Explainability and Interpretability

LLMs are often criticized as “black boxes,” which is unacceptable in high-stakes fields. Explainability and interpretability techniques aim to make LLM decisions transparent and justify their outputs:

• Importance of Explainability: Both healthcare and finance regulators increasingly demand that AI decisions be interpretable. A recent survey underscores the “need for transparency in LLMs” and advocates valuing interpretability on par with raw performance. In domains like medical diagnosis or credit risk assessment, stakeholders must understand why the model gave a certain answer. Lack of explainability can erode trust; users may ignore even accurate AI recommendations if they don’t come with rationale. For example, clinicians are unlikely to follow a treatment suggestion from an LLM unless it can explain its reasoning or cite relevant medical literature. Similarly, a bank loan officer or risk manager must be able to defend how an AI arrived at a credit decision to satisfy compliance and auditing standards.

• Post-hoc Explanation Methods: A variety of techniques allow analysts to probe LLM behavior after the fact. Feature attribution methods adapt tools like Integrated Gradients or SHAP (originally developed for simpler models) to LLMs, highlighting which words in the input most influenced the output. Libraries like Captum (for PyTorch) and Inseq provide ways to inspect transformer models. They can output attention weights, identify important tokens, or even trace which internal neurons activated. For instance, an interpretability toolkit can reveal that in a financial news summary task, the LLM’s attention concentrated on words like “bankrupt” or “merger,” explaining why it gave a certain summary tone. Visualization of these attention patterns or gradient-based attributions helps domain experts verify that the model is “paying attention” to the right factors (e.g., critical symptoms in a medical case, or key financial indicators in an earnings report). Another approach is layer-wise or neuronal analysis – identifying circuits or neurons in the LLM that correspond to concepts (e.g., a neuron that activates for drug names). While this is an active research area, it is beginning to yield insights, such as understanding which part of a model handles numerical reasoning versus language nuances. These insights can guide further tuning or at least flag potential failure modes.

• Built-in Reasoning and Self-Explanation: Instead of treating the LLM as a black box to explain post-hoc, researchers are making LLMs explain themselves. One popular technique is Chain-of-Thought prompting, which encourages the model to produce a step-by-step reasoning trace before the final answer. In high-stakes domains, this helps users follow the model’s logic. However, basic chain-of-thought can sometimes lead the model astray or produce unverifiable rationale. Recent work introduces improved methods: for example, the Domaino1s approach (2025) fine-tunes LLMs on domain-specific reasoning tasks (like legal QA or stock recommendations) and uses a selective tree search to explore multiple reasoning paths. They also propose PROOF-Score, an automated metric to rate the completeness, safety, and factual accuracy of an LLM’s explanation. In tests on financial advice and legal reasoning, this method improved the quality of both answers and explanations, giving users richer justifications. Another emerging idea is integrating external knowledge or rules for transparency. For instance, knowledge graph-enhanced LLMs force the model to link its outputs to a graph of known entities/relations, making it clear which facts support the answer. In finance, an LLM might attach its reasoning to a graph of companies and regulations, or in healthcare, to a graph of symptoms and diseases, thus providing a structured explanation. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is also used for explainability: the LLM retrieves relevant documents (e.g., medical guidelines or financial reports) and bases its answer on them, effectively providing citations for its outputs. Overall, combining LLMs with interpretable intermediaries – whether logic rules, graphs, or retrieved texts – is a key research direction to make their decisions more transparent.

• Accountability and Audit: Explainability is tightly linked to accountability. Regulated industries are implementing frameworks to audit AI decisions. For LLMs, this means logging model outputs and their accompanying explanations, and having humans review a sample of these for correctness. Explanation methods help assign responsibility when errors occur (e.g., was it due to a misleading part of the prompt or a flawed internal representation?). In finance, model risk management teams are exploring how to incorporate XAI techniques so that LLM-based tools can be validated similarly to traditional models. In healthcare, there are efforts to standardize how AI explanations are presented to clinicians, so they can be consistently understood and evaluated. While true “glass box” transparency for giant neural networks remains an unsolved challenge, a combination of the above methods is gradually improving stakeholders’ ability to trust and verify LLM outputs.

Human-in-the-Loop Considerations

In regulated settings, human oversight is not just advisable – it is often legally required. LLM deployments are thus designed with humans in the loop at multiple stages:

• Design and Training Phase: Involving domain experts during the model development lifecycle greatly improves safety and relevance. For example, a 2024 healthcare study recommends “Clinician-in-loop design” – i.e. having doctors and nurses collaborate with data scientists from the start. These experts guide what data the model should train on, what an appropriate output format looks like, and what failure modes to watch for. Clinicians can label data or provide feedback on early model outputs, injecting real-world context. In finance, similarly, traders or compliance officers might be consulted to ensure an LLM that analyzes market data is focusing on the right objectives. Human expertise is crucial for defining ethical and operational boundaries for the model. This participatory approach was exemplified by a Swiss academic medical center, which convened 30 stakeholders (doctors, nurses, patients, IT staff) to identify promising LLM use-cases and anticipate issues like bias or hallucinations before deploying any model. Such proactive engagement sets the stage for smoother adoption and alignment with user needs.

• Decision Making Phase (Human-on-the-loop): When LLMs are used in practice, they should act as assistive tools rather than autonomous agents in critical decisions. In healthcare, this means an LLM might draft a clinical summary or suggest a diagnosis, but a licensed clinician must review and approve it. Many institutions explicitly forbid using LLM outputs without verification. For instance, at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, their internal GPT-4 system (GPT4DFCI) is “prohibited in direct clinical care” – it can be used for operations and research, but doctors cannot rely on it for final treatment decisions. Instead, the human experts are accountable: users are reminded they must verify the AI’s content and are responsible for the completeness and accuracy of any final work product. In finance, a bank might use an LLM to flag unusual transactions or draft an investment report, but compliance officers and analysts remain in charge of the final call. This human-on-the-loop paradigm ensures that any risky or uncertain output is caught by a real person. It also provides a fail-safe against LLMs’ known issues like hallucinations or bias.

• Continuous Monitoring and Feedback (Human-in-the-loop): After deployment, maintaining an active feedback loop is essential for risk mitigation. Users should have channels to report AI errors or problematic suggestions. Many organizations implement a form of human feedback pipeline: model outputs are logged and periodically reviewed by experts, and any identified mistakes are used to retrain or adjust the model. One framework suggests establishing a continuous feedback loop during pilot deployments, where clinicians regularly give input on an LLM’s usefulness and correctness. This iterative refinement is akin to having the model learn on the job with human mentors. In regulated industries, there may also be oversight committees that meet to evaluate the AI’s performance and decide on updates. Dana-Farber, for example, set up a Generative AI Governance Committee comprising representatives from research, IT security, legal, privacy, ethics, compliance, and even patient advocates. This committee created policies for AI use and guided the phased rollout of the hospital’s LLM system. Such governance structures exemplify human oversight at an organizational level – ensuring that the deployment as a whole stays aligned with ethical standards and regulatory requirements.
  

• Role of Human Override: In critical scenarios, LLM systems should be designed to defer to human judgment. Emerging research on “selective prediction” allows an AI to abstain when it is not confident, triggering human intervention. For instance, a medical LLM might detect when a case falls outside its training distribution (say a very rare disease) and alert a physician that it has low confidence in its recommendation. In finance, if an LLM-driven trading system encounters an unprecedented market situation, it could pause and ask a human manager for guidance. Designing LLM workflows with clear handoff points – where a human can step in to correct or take over – significantly reduces the risk of catastrophic errors. It is widely acknowledged that AI does not eliminate human experts, but augments them: the goal is to let the LLM handle routine, high-volume tasks (with humans reviewing samples of its work), while humans handle the complex or sensitive decisions.

In summary, human-in-the-loop approaches ensure that ultimate responsibility remains with qualified professionals. This not only satisfies regulators and liability concerns but also helps in training the AI itself to better meet real-world requirements through continuous human feedback and guidance.

Industry Applications and Case Studies

Real-world deployments of LLMs in healthcare and finance illustrate both the potential and the challenges of applying these models under heavy regulatory constraints. Below we highlight case studies and applications in each domain:

Healthcare Applications

• Clinical Documentation and Summarization: One of the first areas where LLMs have proven useful is in generating and summarizing clinical text. Hospitals are experimenting with LLM assistants to transcribe and summarize doctor-patient conversations, draft discharge notes, or convert medical jargon into patient-friendly language. In a participatory trial at a European medical center, clinicians highly ranked use-cases like an “automatic tool for classifying incident reports” and “summarization of documentation into patient-adapted language” as impactful and relatively low-risk applications of LLMs. These tasks involve heavy text processing but little autonomous medical decision-making, making them ideal for early LLM adoption. Models like GPT-4 can significantly reduce the burden of paperwork by producing first drafts of reports that humans then finalize. The main challenges are ensuring accuracy (a factual error in a medical summary can be dangerous) and maintaining privacy (ensuring no PHI leaks beyond authorized systems). Nonetheless, case studies report promising results: LLMs can accurately summarize complex medical records, freeing clinicians to spend more time with patients.

• Decision Support (with Caution): Researchers have explored LLMs for clinical decision support, such as suggesting diagnoses or treatment options based on patient data. For example, an LLM fine-tuned on medical Q&A might answer a doctor’s query about a difficult case. There have been successful demonstrations where LLMs achieved high accuracy on medical exam questions or even outperformed junior doctors in some diagnostic tasks. However, real-world use has been cautious. A notable deployment is GPT4DFCI at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute – an AI assistant available hospital-wide for questions and tasks excluding direct patient care. It is used in areas like research brainstorming, composing emails or reports, and consolidating information (e.g., summarizing latest oncology papers for clinicians). The system is hosted entirely on-premises within the hospital’s private network to ensure security and HIPAA compliance. All prompts and responses stay within this isolated environment, and the model does not have access to the internet or external data, preventing any leakage of sensitive information. The rollout at Dana-Farber was gradual – starting with a small group of pilot users and then expanding – accompanied by extensive training on how to use the AI safely. Users are instructed on the tool’s limits (e.g., it may produce incorrect or biased answers) and are required to double-check its outputs. This case study shows a successful implementation balancing innovation with prudence: the LLM delivered productivity gains in writing and analysis for staff, while a governance committee and strict usage policies mitigated risks.

• Benefits and Ongoing Challenges: Early feedback from such implementations indicates that LLMs can indeed save time – for instance, generating a draft patient letter in seconds rather than a doctor spending 10 minutes. They also assist in education: a chatbot that explains medical concepts in plain language can help patients understand their conditions better, improving engagement. However, challenges were also noted. Hallucinations remain a concern; there have been cases where an LLM gave a very plausible-sounding but completely incorrect medical recommendation. This underscores the need for human validation (as discussed above). Bias is another issue – if the training data had fewer examples of certain patient groups or rare diseases, the LLM might offer less accurate information for those, potentially exacerbating healthcare disparities. To address this, hospitals are actively researching techniques to reduce bias and continually evaluating LLM outputs for fairness. Another challenge is integration: making the LLM work within existing electronic health record (EHR) systems and clinical workflows. It’s not enough to have a clever model; it needs to smoothly integrate so that using it adds no extra burden on busy clinicians. Some pilot projects have integrated LLMs into EHR interfaces, where a doctor can, for example, highlight text and get a summarized report or translation on the fly. These integrations must be rigorously tested for usability and safety. In summary, healthcare LLM applications are demonstrating real value in administrative and educational tasks (and even showing potential in clinical decision support under oversight), but they require careful design, continuous monitoring, and a clear understanding of their limitations to be used ethically and effectively.

Finance Applications

• Regulatory Compliance and Analysis: The finance industry is leveraging LLMs to parse complex legal and regulatory texts, a task that typically consumes significant human effort. As mentioned, researchers have successfully used GPT-4 to interpret Basel III banking regulations. In that experiment, the LLM translated dense regulatory prose into a mathematical formula for capital requirements, and even generated pseudo-code to calculate those requirements in a risk management system. This hints at a future where banks could use LLMs to stay up-to-date with evolving regulations – the model could ingest new directives from regulators and output a summary of required actions or changes in policy. Some compliance departments are testing LLMs to automatically scan financial laws and flag relevant updates. Similarly, law firms in the financial sector use LLMs to draft compliance checklists or answer questions about regulatory obligations. A key benefit is consistency: the AI can ensure no section of a 100-page regulation is overlooked, which might happen with human analysts under time pressure. Nonetheless, the challenges include verification (any AI-generated interpretation must be reviewed by legal experts, as errors in compliance can be costly) and the fact that regulatory language can be nuanced, requiring contextual judgment that AI might not fully grasp. There’s also caution around data: feeding confidential compliance documents or client data into a third-party LLM (like a cloud API) could breach confidentiality. Thus, banks often restrict such AI usage to either on-prem models or anonymized inputs.

• Domain-Specific LLMs for Finance: To address the specialized jargon and tasks in finance, there’s a trend toward training domain-specific LLMs. BloombergGPT is a prime example – a 50 billion-parameter model trained predominantly on financial data (news, filings, market data) ( BloombergGPT: A Large Language Model for Finance). BloombergGPT has shown significantly better performance on finance tasks (like risk sentiment analysis, financial question-answering, etc.) than general models, while still maintaining competent general language abilities . Its development (reported in late 2023) demonstrated that a large financial corpus can imbue an LLM with expert-level knowledge of stock tickers, technical terms, and even the style of financial reports. Similarly, other organizations have produced models like FinGPT, FinBERT, or industry-specific chatbots fine-tuned on proprietary data. The advantage of a finance-trained LLM is improved accuracy and relevance in that domain – for example, understanding that “Apple” in a finance context likely refers to Apple Inc. (the company) rather than the fruit. These models are being applied to a wide range of tasks: sentiment analysis of market news and social media to inform trading strategies, financial reporting (generating draft earnings reports or summarizing quarterly results for executives), customer service (answering client queries about their account in natural language), and risk assessment (scanning through loan applications or insurance claims to detect anomalies or fraud). A survey of LLM applications in finance categorizes use-cases into areas such as textual analysis (news and reports), quantitative forecasting (time-series predictions from textual data), scenario simulation (agent-based modeling of economic situations), and others ( A Survey of Large Language Models for Financial Applications: Progress, Prospects and Challenges). This breadth shows that nearly every facet of finance that involves language or documents could be touched by LLM technology.

• Trading and Investment Assistance: While fully autonomous trading by LLM is not the norm (and would be heavily scrutinized by regulators), LLMs are being used to assist analysts and portfolio managers. For instance, an LLM can read through thousands of SEC filings or earnings call transcripts and highlight sections with positive or negative tone, potentially indicating the company’s outlook. Hedge funds and research firms are integrating LLMs to create summary dashboards – e.g., “summarize today’s market-moving news in one paragraph each, and extract any forward-looking statements by Fed officials.” Such tools augment human investors by ensuring they don’t miss important information. There are also chatbot-style assistants for financial advisers; companies like Morgan Stanley have worked with OpenAI to create internal GPT-4 chatbots that help advisers quickly retrieve information from a vast knowledge base of research documents (allowing them to answer client questions faster and with evidence). These use-cases show tangible productivity gains. Challenges here include the need for real-time or up-to-date information (which static LLMs might lack, since they are trained on historical data), and the risk of hallucinations in a high-stakes environment like trading (an AI that inaccurately summarizes a CEO’s statement could lead to a wrong investment move). To mitigate this, many financial LLM applications use retrieval augmentation: the LLM is provided with the latest data (e.g., news articles or database info) at query time, so it bases its answer on fresh, factual information . This approach has been effective in grounding the model’s responses.

• Fraud Detection and Security: Beyond user-facing tasks, LLMs have a role in backend security and monitoring. Banks deal with large volumes of unstructured data (like the text of loan applications, insurance claims, or emails) where fraudulent intent may be hidden. LLMs can analyze these texts for suspicious patterns or inconsistencies – for example, flagging if multiple insurance claims have identical wording (which might indicate a scam) or if an email to a banker contains phrasing often seen in phishing attempts. While traditional rule-based systems exist for fraud detection, LLMs add a layer of adaptive, context-aware analysis. They can be trained on historical fraud cases to pick up subtle cues. Any flagged outputs would then be reviewed by human fraud analysts. This area is still emerging, and financial institutions are careful to validate AI-based fraud alerts to avoid false positives that could inconvenience customers.
  

Challenges and Outlook in Finance: Financial services are inherently risk-averse when it comes to new tech, due to the potential impact on markets and strict oversight. A notable challenge in deploying LLMs is model validation – under regulations like the Federal Reserve’s SR 11-7 guidance on model risk management, any model used in a bank must be rigorously validated by an independent team. Doing this for an LLM is hard because of its complexity and the stochastic nature of its outputs. Banks are developing new validation techniques, such as testing LLMs on controlled scenarios, checking for stability of outputs with slight input perturbations, and auditing for bias (e.g., ensuring a loan recommendation AI doesn’t inadvertently discriminate). Another challenge is keeping models up-to-date: financial facts change rapidly (new tickers, mergers, regulations). This has led to interest in continuous learning or regularly retraining domain-specific LLMs on new data, as well as using smaller updateable models on top of a fixed base model. On the positive side, early deployments (mostly internal) have shown that employees quickly adapt to using LLM assistants and often report significant efficiency gains. As confidence and understanding of these tools grow, we can expect wider adoption – possibly even customer-facing financial chatbots that can handle complex multi-turn dialogues about personal finance, within the guardrails of compliance. Collaboration between AI experts, domain experts, and regulators will be key to unlocking the full potential of LLMs in finance while maintaining stability and trust.

Conclusion

Deploying LLMs in highly regulated industries requires a socio-technical approach: not just cutting-edge models, but also robust governance, compliance alignment, and user training. In healthcare and finance, organizations are finding that LLMs can drive efficiency (by automating documentation and analysis) and unlock insights (by synthesizing vast information) in ways not previously possible. Over the past year, numerous studies and real deployments have converged on best practices:

• Privacy-first design is essential – techniques like differential privacy, on-premises deployment, and federated learning help protect sensitive data.

• Hybrid deployment strategies often yield the best balance: critical data and services on-prem or on secure edge devices for compliance, with cloud used selectively for scale.

• Transparency and explainability must be built into LLM solutions, through both technical tools (XAI methods, documentation) and processes (human review of AI decisions).

• Human oversight is not optional – it’s a fundamental part of system design, from model development with expert input to deployment with clear human checkpoints.

• Iterative improvement and monitoring ensure the LLM continues to meet legal, ethical, and performance standards, with feedback loops driving updates.

Both healthcare and finance stand to benefit enormously from LLMs, but the margin for error in these fields is thin. The emerging consensus is that LLMs should assist professionals, not replace them – functioning as advanced tools under our control. By adhering to stringent data governance, leveraging deployment architectures that mitigate risk, insisting on interpretability, and keeping humans in the loop, organizations have begun to safely integrate LLMs into workflows that were once thought too sensitive for AI. Continuing research (as seen in 2024–2025 literature) will further improve techniques for private, explainable, and reliable LLMs. With cautious and principled deployment, LLMs are poised to become invaluable allies in delivering better healthcare outcomes and smarter financial services, all while maintaining the trust of regulators and the public.

Sources:

1. M. Al-Garadi et al., "Large Language Models in Healthcare," arXiv preprint 2503.04748, 2025.

2. Y. Liu et al., "Privacy-Preserving Large Language Models: Mechanisms, Applications, and Future Directions," arXiv preprint 2412.06113, 2024.

3. D. Sonntag et al., "Machine Learners Should Acknowledge the Legal Implications of LLMs as Personal Data," arXiv preprint 2503.01630, 2025.

4. G. Carra et al., "Participatory Assessment of LLM Applications in an Academic Medical Center," arXiv preprint 2501.10366, 2024.

5. G. Carra et al., (ibid.),.

6. PyTorch Blog, “ExecuTorch Alpha: Taking LLMs and AI to the Edge,” Apr. 2024 (ExecuTorch Alpha: Taking LLMs and AI to the Edge with Our Community and Partners | PyTorch).

7. E. Cambria et al., "XAI meets LLMs: A Survey on Explainable AI and Large Language Models," arXiv preprint 2407.15248, 2024.

8. X. Chu et al., "Domainⁱˢ: Guiding LLM Reasoning for Explainable Answers in High-Stakes Domains," arXiv preprint 2501.14431, 2025.

9. L. Liu et al., "A Survey on Medical LLMs: Technology, Trustworthiness, and Future Directions," arXiv preprint 2406.03712, 2024.

10. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, “Private and secure generative AI tool supports operations and research at Dana-Farber,” News Release, Mar. 2024.

11. Z. Cao and Z. Feinstein, "Large Language Model in Financial Regulatory Interpretation," arXiv preprint 2405.06808, 2024.

12. S. Wu et al., "BloombergGPT: A Large Language Model for Finance," arXiv preprint 2303.17564 (v3), Dec. 2023 ( BloombergGPT: A Large Language Model for Finance).

13. Y. Nie et al., "A Survey of LLMs for Financial Applications: Progress, Prospects and Challenges," arXiv preprint 2406.11903, 2024 ( A Survey of Large Language Models for Financial Applications: Progress, Prospects and Challenges).