Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39327389›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2024

Automated Mass Extraction of Over 680,000 PICOs from Clinical Study Abstracts Using Generative AI: A Proof-of-Concept Study.

Tim Reason, Julia Langham, Andy Gimblett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tim ReasonEstima Scientific, Mediaworks, 191 Wood Lane, London, W12 7FP, UK. tim.reason@estima-sci.com.
Julia LanghamEstima Scientific, Mediaworks, 191 Wood Lane, London, W12 7FP, UK.
Andy GimblettEstima Scientific, Mediaworks, 191 Wood Lane, London, W12 7FP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceProof of Concept StudyAbstracting and IndexingHumansPubMedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID39327389
PMCPMC11473607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.