ArticleNature communications2025
Evidence triangulator: using large language models to extract and synthesize causal evidence across study designs.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated candidate confounder scoping for adjustment in clinical research: a retrieval-augmented generation approach.BioData mining · 2026Article
- Challenges and future directions for Mendelian randomization.Nature genetics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Health strategies increasingly emphasize both behavioural and biomedical interventions, yet the complex and often contradictory guidance on diet, behavior, and health outcomes complicates evidence-based decision-making. Evidence triangulation across diverse study designs is essential for balancing biases and establishing causality, but scalable, automated methods for achieving this are lacking. In this study, we assess the performance of large language models in extracting both ontological and methodological information from scientific literature to automate evidence triangulation. A two-step extraction approach-focusing on exposure-outcome concepts first, followed by relation extraction-outperforms a one-step method, particularly in identifying the direction of effect (F1 = 0.86) and statistical significance (F1 = 0.96). Using salt intake and blood pressure as a case study, we calculate the Convergency of Evidence and Level of Convergency, finding a strong excitatory effect of salt on blood pressure (942 studies), and weak excitatory effect on cardiovascular diseases and deaths (124 studies). This approach complements traditional meta-analyses by integrating evidence across study designs, and enabling rapid, dynamic assessment of scientific controversies.
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.