Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40537053›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2025

Editor's view: Value of information in the 21st century - examples from science, medicine, policy, media, and markets.

Igor Rudan

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Editor's view: What makes science successful?Journal of global health · 2025
    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

1 author.

Igor RudanCentre for Global Health, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This editorial explores the concept of the 'value of information' in the 21st century through five distinct domains: science, medicine, policy, media, and markets. It uses examples to show that not all information is of equal value. Valuable information shifts probabilities assigned to our hypotheses in the most meaningful ways. It significantly alters our knowledge and understanding of our context, helps us prioritise more rational ideas, and facilitates better decision-making. This paper also addresses the necessity of a conscious observer for the value of information to exist. It develops a framework for how the brain perceives, processes, and assigns value to new information. An example with childhood memories is used to explain the incremental and disruptive shifts in understanding that information of different value can cause. Further examples illustrate how well-designed research can amplify the value of information, how long-neglected information can be rediscovered and used to radically reshape policy, and how expert crowdsourcing can prioritise ideas and democratise decision-making. They also show how key pieces of the most valuable information can redirect policies, have large real-world impact, and save lives. The role of disinformation is also addressed, particularly its power to distort our shared understanding of the related context, mislead rational activities and prompt susceptible people to prioritise irrational ideas. Mainstream media and social media can enable rapid spread of disinformation, exploiting the greater intensity of the brain's response to an unexpected surprise over the expected truth. Stock market prices, meanwhile, reflect in real time how each new information changes the perceived value of a company. Valuable information seems to have some inherent traits: relevance, i.e. it influences an observer's perception of the related beliefs or hypotheses; credibility, i.e. it needs to be trusted by an observer; and leverage, i.e. it influences an observer's ideas and decisions decisively. Where all three criteria align, information assumes a 'high value coefficient' and serves in revising prioritised ideas. Designing activities to increase this coefficient is therefore of common interest to scientists, health professionals, policymakers, journalists, and investors. As artificial intelligence accelerates the volume and speed of data production, human and machine systems alike will focus not merely on data collection, but on discerning which missing information, if generated, could enable the greatest positive impact on the real world. Ultimately, future success in science, medicine, policy, media, and markets may not necessarily be linked to gathering the largest amount information, but rather being good at identifying, generating, and acting upon the information that is most valuable.

Indexed as

Health PolicyInformation DisseminationMass MediaDecision MakingHumansScience

Identifiers

PMID40537053
PMCPMC12178590

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.