ArticlePloS one2025
Using artificial intelligence tools to automate data extraction for living evidence syntheses.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From reviews to real-time: dynamic evidence in dentistry.Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Article
- Large language models in systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical treatments for vaginal vault prolapse.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Using artificial intelligence for the development of a living evidence map: The pharmacopuncture example.Integrative medicine research · 2025Article
- Using Artificial Intelligence Tools as Second Reviewers for Data Extraction in Systematic Reviews: A Performance Comparison of Two AI Tools Against Human Reviewers.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Living evidence synthesis (LES) involves repeatedly updating a systematic review or meta-analysis at regular intervals to incorporate new evidence into the summary results. It requires a considerable amount of human time investment in the article search, collection, and data extraction phases. Tools exist to automate the retrieval of relevant journal articles, but pulling data out of those articles is currently still a manual process. In this article, we present a proof-of-concept Python program that leverages artificial intelligence (AI) tools (specifically, ChatGPT) to parse a batch of journal articles and extract relevant results, greatly reducing the human time investment in this action without compromising on accuracy. Our program is tested on a set of journal articles that estimate the mean incubation period for COVID-19, an epidemiological parameter of importance for mathematical modelling. We also discuss important limitations related to the total amount of information and rate at which that information can be sent to the AI engine. This work contributes to the ongoing discussion about the use of AI and the role such tools can have in scientific research.
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.