Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39972406›Full record

ArticleBMC neurology2025

GPT meets PubMed: a novel approach to literature review using a large language model to crowdsource migraine medication reviews.

Elyse Mackenzie, Roger Cheng, Pengfei Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC neurology, 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

3 authors.

Elyse MackenzieDepartment of Neurology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Jersey, USA.
Roger ChengDepartment of Neurology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Jersey, USA.
Pengfei ZhangDepartment of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. phil.p.zhang@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the potential of two large language models (LLMs), GPT-4 (OpenAI) and PaLM2 (Google), in automating migraine literature analysis by conducting sentiment analysis of migraine medications in clinical trial abstracts.

backgroundMigraine affects over one billion individuals worldwide, significantly impacting their quality of life. A vast amount of scientific literature on novel migraine therapeutics continues to emerge, but an efficient method by which to perform ongoing analysis and integration of this information poses a challenge.

methods"Sentiment analysis" is a data science technique used to ascertain whether a text has positive, negative, or neutral emotional tone. Migraine medication names were extracted from lists of licensed biological products from the FDA, and relevant abstracts were identified using the MeSH term "migraine disorders" on PubMed and filtered for clinical trials. Standardized prompts were provided to the APIs of both GPT-4 and PaLM2 to request an article sentiment as to the efficacy of each medication found in the abstract text. The resulting sentiment outputs were classified using both a binary and a distribution-based model to determine the efficacy of a given medication.

resultsIn both the binary and distribution-based models, the most favorable migraine medications identified by GPT-4 and PaLM2 aligned with evidence-based guidelines for migraine treatment.

conclusionsLLMs have potential as complementary tools in migraine literature analysis. Despite some inconsistencies in output and methodological limitations, the results highlight the utility of LLMs in enhancing the efficiency of literature review through sentiment analysis.

Indexed as

CrowdsourcingMigraine DisordersPubMedHumansLarge Language ModelsArtificial intelligenceHeadachesLarge language modelLiterature reviewMigraine

Identifiers

PMID39972406
PMCPMC11837380

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.