Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41291944›Full record

ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2025

Cracking the code: AI's role in mapping evidence syntheses to the United Nations sustainable development goals.

Bianca Pilla, Jennifer Stone, Zoe Jordan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Bianca PillaJBI, School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. bianca.pilla@adelaide.edu.au.
Jennifer StoneJBI, School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Zoe JordanJBI, School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the alignment and contributions of research to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) is essential for guiding global progress toward these critical targets. Several SDG mapping approaches have been proposed and tested by organisations and researchers but have not produced consistent results. With its capacity to analyse vast datasets and identify patterns, AI-powered search functionality has been presented as an innovative mechanism for tracking, analysing and reporting SDG research to assess progress towards targets and facilitate evidence-based decisions. This study aimed to assess the reliability of automated mapping approaches utilised by online research databases in mapping published evidence syntheses to the UN SDG-3, Good Health & Wellbeing.

methodsThis study mapped systematic and scoping reviews published in JBI Evidence Synthesis to SDG- 3, Good Health and Wellbeing. Four unique raters independently assessed 204 evidence syntheses based on relevance to SDG-3. These four raters included AI in three established databases and a manual ‘human’ assessment. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Light’s Kappa.

resultsConcurrence occurred for 52% of publications. Inter-rater reliability indicated ‘minimal agreement’ among the four raters in mapping the 204 evidence syntheses to SDG-3. Discrepancies in the publications mapped to SDG-3 across the four raters may be explained by the different taxonomies used by the databases, different machine learning algorithms, and constantly evolving search strategies. Our results indicate significant room for improvement in achieving greater consensus among approaches, including AI algorithms designed to identify such publications.

conclusionThe findings of this study point to the need for SDG mapping tools that are practical and effective, as the 2030 agenda deadline nears and progress on numerous targets lags. Identifying evidence across the global ecosystem is critical, but AI’s reliability to contribute to this has yet to be established with confidence. It signals to the scientific community, policymakers, funders and others the importance of critically reflecting on how research is captured and aligned to the SDGs.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceEvidence synthesisMachine learningNatural language processingSDGsUnited nations sustainable development goals

Identifiers

PMID41291944
PMCPMC12751934

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.