Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40047976›Full record

ReviewBlood research2025

Transforming hematological research documentation with large language models: an approach to scientific writing and data analysis.

John Jeongseok Yang, Sang-Hyun Hwang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Blood research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

2 authors.

John Jeongseok YangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7739-1009
Sang-Hyun HwangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. mindcatch@amc.seoul.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3201-5728

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, CA, US), have revolutionized scientific writing and research processes across academic disciplines, providing comprehensive support throughout the entire research lifecycle. Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools enhance every aspect of scientific writing, from hypothesis generation and methodology design to data analysis and manuscript preparation. This review examines the applications of LLMs in hematological research, with particular emphasis on advanced techniques, including prompt engineering and retrieval augmented generation (RAG) frameworks. Prompt engineering methods, including zero-shot and few-shot learning along with a chain-of-thought approach, enable researchers to generate more precise context-specific content, especially in scientific writing. Integrating RAG frameworks with the current medical literature and clinical guidelines significantly reduces the risk of misinformation while ensuring alignment with contemporary medical standards. Even though these GAI tools offer remarkable potential for streamlining research writing and enhancing documentation quality, the study also addresses the critical importance of maintaining scientific integrity, ethical considerations, and privacy concerns in hematological research.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceHematology researchLarge language modelsMedical researchPrompt engineeringScientific writing

Identifiers

PMID40047976
PMCPMC11885755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.