Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41126363›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental evidence2025

Advocating for trust in and trustworthy AI to transform evidence synthesis.

Isabel K Fletcher

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental evidence, 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.

Isabel K FletcherWellcome Trust, London, UK. i.fletcher@wellcome.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The global demand for high-quality, robust and up-to-date evidence to guide decision-making has never been higher. The vast quantity of scientific literature being produced and made accessible presents an unparalleled opportunity for evidence-based decision-making to become a widespread reality. In addition, the world has at its fingertips cutting-edge technologies, such as AI, to make sense of this extensive knowledge base and deliver insights more quickly to decision-makers most in need. AI-powered evidence syntheses promises to be transformative, saving many lives and enhancing livelihoods globally. However, achieving this requires substantial cultural shifts in the evidence community, including amongst both AI developers and users to shape both trustworthy AI and trust in AI. Current efforts to establish best practices are emerging, but progress is hindered by the lack of clear consensus on what constitutes trustworthy AI for evidence synthesis. Philanthropic investments in trustworthy AI systems, alongside robust evaluations of trust in AI for evidence synthesis, must be prioritised to determine the conditions required for an enabling environment. Mainstreaming AI for reliable, faster and cheaper evidence synthesis demands a better understanding of trustworthy AI and trust in these systems. Funders should prioritise aspects of trustworthiness and trust whilst balancing the drive towards ongoing innovation.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDataEquityEvidence synthesisPolicyTechnologyTools

Identifiers

PMID41126363
PMCPMC12541976

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.