Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40932652›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2025

The Geometry of Language: Understanding LLMs in Bioethics.

Aníbal M Astobiza

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 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

1 author.

Aníbal M AstobizaDepartamento de Filosofía I, Edificio de la Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Granada, Campus de la Cartuja, 18011, Granada, Spain. amastobiza@ugr.es.ORCID 0000-0003-1399-5388

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, I explored the application of large language models (LLMs) in analysing linguistic colexification and ambiguity within bioethical scenarios. By employing word embeddings derived from LLMs, I constructed semantic distance matrices that provide insight into the relationships between key terms in bioethical vignettes. These matrices were used to quantify and visualize the degree of linguistic ambiguity and specificity across different versions of each vignette-those with high colexification (ambiguous language) and those with low colexification (specific language). The approach taken involves encoding words according to their semantic adjacency and representing these relationships geometrically through distance matrices. The resulting matrices reflect the nuanced differences in how concepts are related within bioethical contexts, offering a quantitative method for analysing language use. The study demonstrates that LLMs, by facilitating geometric representations of language, can enhance our understanding of complex ethical dilemmas by systematically addressing linguistic ambiguity. Ultimately, this research contributes to the field of bioethics by providing a computational approach to improving clarity in ethical communication, highlighting the potential of LLMs to inform both ethical decision-making and discourse analysis. LLMs, while not capable of performing speech acts in the full philosophical sense-as human beings do-still serve as powerful tools to analyse and understand bioethical language. This distinction-between performing speech acts and analysing their linguistic features-highlights the unique contribution of LLMs as analytical tools rather than ethical agents.

Indexed as

BioethicsLanguageLinguisticsModels, TheoreticalSemanticsCommunicationDecision MakingHumansBioethicsColexificationLarge Language Models (LLMs)Linguistic ambiguitySemantic topology

Identifiers

PMID40932652
PMCPMC12575457

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.