ArticleJournal of global health2026
Exploring variation in research priorities generated by AI tools.
Article in Journal of global health, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools based on large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly used by researchers and may play a role in health-related research priority-setting exercises (RPSEs). However, little is known about how these tools may differ in the types of research priorities they generate. Methods: We examined research priorities aimed at improving treatments for four diseases: cancer, COVID-19, HIV, and Alzheimer. We compared the outputs from five AI tools (DeepSeek, ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Gemini) using SBERT-BioBERT embeddings and cosine similarity scores, and assessed the stability of differences between them by re-running identical prompts and slightly modified versions. Results: We found that the outputs produced by Gemini were highly similar to those produced by the other tools. The two most different outputs were those produced by DeepSeek and Perplexity, whereby the former tended to emphasise technical medical issues, while the latter emphasised public health concerns. This substantive distinction between DeepSeek and Perplexity remained stable across repeated and tweaked prompts. Conclusions: Our exploratory analysis suggests that Gemini performs well for researchers who prefer to generate health-related research priorities using a single AI model. For those planning to draw on multiple models, Perplexity and DeepSeek offer complementary perspectives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.