Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41163049›Full record

ArticleInfectious agents and cancer2025

Why science must speak differently.

Francesco Branda, Laura Leondina Campanozzi, Fabio Scarpa, Vittoradolfo Tambone, Massimo Ciccozzi

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Infectious agents and cancer, 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

5 authors.

Francesco Branda *Unit of Medical Statistics and Molecular Epidemiology, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, 00128, Rome, Italy. f.branda@unicampus.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9485-3877
Laura Leondina Campanozzi *Research Unit of Bioethics and Humanities, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Fabio ScarpaGenomics, AI, Bioinformatics, Infectious Diseases, Epidemiology Group (GABIE), Rome, Italy.
Vittoradolfo TamboneResearch Unit of Bioethics and Humanities, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Massimo CiccozziUnit of Medical Statistics and Molecular Epidemiology, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, 00128, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the complexities surrounding public trust in science, particularly in the context of overwhelming data and political polarization. The call to “trust the science” emerged as both a symbol of confidence and a source of public tension, exposing the challenges in communicating scientific uncertainty, data interpretation, and expertise. This paper examines the critical role of communication in shaping public perceptions of science, emphasizing the need for epistemic humility and transparency in the face of uncertainty. While data availability increased, the real challenge lay in its interpretation and the framing of scientific messages for diverse audiences. The paper argues that health crises, such as COVID-19 and the resurgence of West Nile Virus, demonstrate that information overload and poor communication can lead to confusion, mistrust, and the politicization of science. Effective science communication must transcend purely rational approaches and address emotional and social factors through persuasive strategies, including emotional appeals and interactive tools. Moreover, the structural transformation of information flows in digital societies, epitomized by the concept of “infocracy”, exacerbates the challenge of maintaining public trust in science. The paper calls for a reimagined approach to science communication that prioritizes clarity, context, and responsible engagement, fostering a more informed, resilient, and critically engaged public.

Indexed as

Epistemic humilityHealth crisesInfocracyInfodemicPersuasive communicationPublic trust in scienceScience communicationUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID41163049
PMCPMC12574302

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.