ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2024
Automated Mass Extraction of Over 680,000 PICOs from Clinical Study Abstracts Using Generative AI: A Proof-of-Concept Study.
Article in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical application of robot-assisted fixation for calcaneal fractures: a meta-analysis with subgroup comparisons.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review.F1000Research · 2021Pooled it
- Value and Credibility of Meta-Analysis: Tutorial on Enhancing Methodological Rigor and AI-Powered Efficiency.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Implementing the EU HTA regulation and joint clinical assessment: a multi-stakeholder perspective from Italy.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis: a narrative review.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- MetaMind: A multi-agent transformer-driven framework for automated network meta-analyses.PloS one · 2026Article
- Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in Health Economics and Outcomes Research: A Primer on Techniques and Breakthroughs.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2025Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in ophthalmology research writing: A comprehensive review of applications, detection tools, and ethical considerations.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (GenAI) shows promise in automating key tasks involved in conducting systematic literature reviews (SLRs), including screening, bias assessment and data extraction. This potential automation is increasingly relevant as pharmaceutical developers face challenging requirements for timely and precise SLRs using the population, intervention, comparator and outcome (PICO) framework, such as those under the impending European Union (EU) Health Technology Assessment Regulation 2021/2282 (HTAR). This proof-of-concept study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, accuracy and efficiency of using GenAI for mass extraction of PICOs from PubMed abstracts.
methodsAbstracts were retrieved from PubMed using a search string targeting randomised controlled trials. A PubMed clinical study 'specific/narrow' filter was also applied. Retrieved abstracts were processed using the OpenAI Batch application programming interface (API), which allowed parallel processing and interaction with Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 Omni (GPT-4o) via custom Python scripts. PICO elements were extracted using a zero-shot prompting strategy. Results were stored in CSV files and subsequently imported into a PostgreSQL database.
resultsThe PubMed search returned 682,667 abstracts. PICOs from all abstracts were extracted in < 3 h, with an average processing time of 200 s per 1000 abstracts. A total of 395,992,770 tokens were processed, with an average of 580 tokens per abstract. The total cost was $3390. On the basis of a random sample of 350 abstracts, human verification confirmed that GPT-4o accurately and comprehensively extracted 342 (98%) of all PICOs, with only outcome elements rarely missed.
conclusionsUsing GenAI to extract PICOs from clinical study abstracts could fundamentally transform the way SLRs are conducted. By enabling pharmaceutical developers to anticipate PICO requirements, this approach allows for proactive preparation for the EU HTAR process, or other health technology assessments (HTAs), streamlining efficiency and reducing the burden of meeting these requirements.
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.