ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Evaluating the performance of artificial intelligence in summarizing pre-coded text to support evidence synthesis: a comparison between chatbots and humans.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digitally supported interprofessional interaction in healthcare-a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- AI for scientific discovery is a social problem.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence can match domain experts in evidence extraction and critical appraisal of microbial oncogenesis research publications.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the rise of large language models, the application of artificial intelligence in research is expanding, possibly accelerating specific stages of the research processes. This study aims to compare the accuracy, completeness and relevance of chatbot-generated responses against human responses in evidence synthesis as part of a scoping review.
methodsWe employed a structured survey-based research methodology to analyse and compare responses between two human researchers and four chatbots (ZenoChat, ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and ChatFlash) to questions based on a pre-coded sample of 407 articles. These questions were part of an evidence synthesis of a scoping review dealing with digitally supported interaction between healthcare workers.
resultsThe analysis revealed no significant differences in judgments of correctness between answers by chatbots and those given by humans. However, chatbots' answers were found to recognise the context of the original text better, and they provided more complete, albeit longer, responses. Human responses were less likely to add new content to the original text or include interpretation. Amongst the chatbots, ZenoChat provided the best-rated answers, followed by ChatFlash, with ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0 tying for third. Correct contextualisation of the answer was positively correlated with completeness and correctness of the answer.
conclusionsChatbots powered by large language models may be a useful tool to accelerate qualitative evidence synthesis. Given the current speed of chatbot development and fine-tuning, the successful applications of chatbots to facilitate research will very likely continue to expand over the coming years.
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.