ArticleArXiv2023
PubMed and Beyond: Biomedical Literature Search in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.
Article in ArXiv, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomedical research yields a wealth of information, much of which is only accessible through the literature. Consequently, literature search is an essential tool for building on prior knowledge in clinical and biomedical research. Although recent improvements in artificial intelligence have expanded functionality beyond keyword-based search, these advances may be unfamiliar to clinicians and researchers. In response, we present a survey of literature search tools tailored to both general and specific information needs in biomedicine, with the objective of helping readers efficiently fulfill their information needs. We first examine the widely used PubMed search engine, discussing recent improvements and continued challenges. We then describe literature search tools catering to five specific information needs: 1. Identifying high-quality clinical research for evidence-based medicine. 2. Retrieving gene-related information for precision medicine and genomics. 3. Searching by meaning, including natural language questions. 4. Locating related articles with literature recommendation. 5. Mining literature to discover associations between concepts such as diseases and genetic variants. Additionally, we cover practical considerations and best practices for choosing and using these tools. Finally, we provide a perspective on the future of literature search engines, considering recent breakthroughs in large language models such as ChatGPT. In summary, our survey provides a comprehensive view of biomedical literature search functionalities with 36 publicly available tools.
Identifiers
41031071PMC12478429What 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.