Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39966978›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2025

AI as an accelerator for defining new problems that transcends boundaries.

Tayo Obafemi-Ajayi, Steven F Jennings, Yu Zhang, Kara Li Liu, Joan Peckham, Jason H Moore

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Tayo Obafemi-AjayiEngineering Program, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, 65987, USA. tayoobafemiajayi@missouristate.edu.
Steven F JenningsDepartment of Information Science, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR, 72204, USA.
Yu ZhangDepartment of Computer Science, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX, 78212, USA.
Kara Li LiuSchool of Business, Roger Williams University, Providence, RI, 02809, USA.
Joan PeckhamDepartment of Computer Science & Statistics, The University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, 02881, USA.
Jason H MooreDepartment of Computational Biomedicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, West Hollywood, CA, 90069, USA. jason.moore@csmc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, convergence, and No-Boundary Thinking (NBT) research are methodology and technology-agnostic approaches to problem solving. The focus is on defining problems informed by access to multiple knowledge sources and expert perspectives across different domains, with the goal of accessing all available knowledge sources and perspectives. While access to all available knowledge sources and perspectives could be seen as a difficult to attain objective, with the recent rise of AI we might be closer to approaching this goal. We review several examples of methodologies and technologies that have been used to put these strategies into action, but the primary focus of this paper is on how recent advances in AI now enable a quantum leap forward in defining new problems. By leveraging the capacity of AI to synthesize knowledge from multiple domains, these tools can be used to propose multiple candidate problem definitions. AI is uniquely able to draw upon many more knowledge sources than any individual-or even a very large team-could. Coupled with human intelligence, better problems can be defined to address complex scholarly or societal challenges.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceConvergenceInterdisciplinary scienceNo-Boundary thinkingProblem definitionTeam science

Identifiers

PMID39966978
PMCPMC11837601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.