ArticleJAMIA open2024
Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reproducibility and validity failures in systematic review deduplication tools: evaluation on a paediatric neuroradiology corpus.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Comparing five generative AI chatbots' answers to LLM-generated clinical questions with medical information scientists' evidence summaries.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Sensitivity and Precision of Search Strategies Built Using a Text-Mining Word Frequency Tool (PubReMiner) Compared to Current Best Practice for Building Search Strategies: A Study Within a Review (SWAR).Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Use of Small-Molecule Inhibitors of CILK1 and AURKA as Cilia-Promoting Drugs to Decelerate Medulloblastoma Cell Replication.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Responsible Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Rapid Reviews: A Position Statement From the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Bespoke Large Language Model Pipeline to Extract Data From Different Study Designs for Public Health Evidence Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Comparing Five Generative AI Chatbots' Answers to LLM-Generated Clinical Questions with Medical Information Scientists' Evidence Summaries.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- A foundation model for human-AI collaboration in medical literature mining.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Leveraging AI for Meta-Analysis: Evaluating LLMs in Detecting Publication Bias for Next-Generation Evidence Synthesis.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Automated analyses of risk of bias and critical appraisal of systematic reviews (ROBIS and AMSTAR 2): a comparison of the performance of 4 large language models.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Accelerating clinical evidence synthesis with large language models.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Large language model enhanced framework for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Development of search queries for systematic reviews (SRs) is time-consuming. In this work, we capitalize on recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and a relatively large dataset of natural language descriptions of reviews and corresponding Boolean searches to generate Boolean search queries from SR titles and key questions. Materials and Methods: We curated a training dataset of 10 346 SR search queries registered in PROSPERO. We used this dataset to fine-tune a set of models to generate search queries based on Mistral-Instruct-7b. We evaluated the models quantitatively using an evaluation dataset of 57 SRs and qualitatively through semi-structured interviews with 8 experienced medical librarians. Results: The model-generated search queries had median sensitivity of 85% (interquartile range [IQR] 40%-100%) and number needed to read of 1206 citations (IQR 205-5810). The interviews suggested that the models lack both the necessary sensitivity and precision to be used without scrutiny but could be useful for topic scoping or as initial queries to be refined. Discussion: Future research should focus on improving the dataset with more high-quality search queries, assessing whether fine-tuning the model on other fields, such as the population and intervention, improves performance, and exploring the addition of interactivity to the interface. Conclusions: The datasets developed for this project can be used to train and evaluate LLMs that map review descriptions to Boolean search queries. The models cannot replace thoughtful search query design but may be useful in providing suggestions for key words and the framework for the query.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.