How may grant applications change in future because of artificial intelligence? An international and historical perspective.

Christina Gao, Benjamin Cook, Brandon Stretton, Aashray Gupta, Joshua Kovoor, Weng Onn Chan, Stephen Bacchi

Abstract readHistorical Article

In one paragraph

Article in Internal medicine journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Christina GaoFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0009-0005-0033-3352

Benjamin CookFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0009-0000-1993-213X

Brandon StrettonFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7939-3489

Aashray GuptaFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Joshua KovoorFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3880-3840

Weng Onn ChanFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Stephen BacchiFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5130-8628

Funding

Australian-American Fulbright Commission

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Grant application processes fulfil a vital role by determining the allocation of resources to facilitate medical research. Existing grant application processes run by large governmental institutions have changed over time. Through examination of previous changes to grant application processes and the current challenges facing grant applicants and reviewers, including the increasing role of artificial intelligence, insights may be obtained into future modifications in grant application structures that require consideration.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiomedical ResearchHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansartificial intelligencecommunicationfundingresearch

Identifiers

PMID40844237

DOI10.1111/imj.70187

PMCPMC12515461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

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.