ArticleBMC medical education2026
SMARTEN: a human-AI hybrid framework for assisted medical literature analysis and its evaluation.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
backgroundFor medical professionals, the comprehension and analysis of literature is essential, however, it requires time which could be dedicated to the primary duties of providing care to patients. To address these conflicting needs and the challenge of finding new and appropriate information at the right time during medical literature review analysis, we introduce, to the best of our knowledge, the first automated framework co-designed with medical professionals, utilising a human-AI hybrid approach for the consolidation of large volumes of literature into manageable, topic-based chunks.
methodsFor this framework (named SMARTEN), on the AI side, cluster-based topic modelling is deployed for the analysis of academic articles (consisting of abstracts and full article content) extracted from the PubMed database, the go-to venue for medical professionals, to ensure the provision of a wide range of topics reflecting this rich field and access to large volumes of biomedical literature. After consolidating topics within the literature, semantic analyses of the relationships between topics are performed, based on the content of the literature within each topic, ultimately assisting in the discovery of new knowledge from the literature. The effectiveness of the proposed approach was evaluated through a software implementation of the SMARTEN framework (the SMARTEN system), and a subsequent experimental study upon the concepts of cognitive load, technology acceptance, and general satisfaction by 18 medical practitioners and medical students. Moreover, the labels assigned by participants to publications were collected and analysed to explore the average accuracy for identifying relevant publications in the SMARTEN system.
resultsOverall, our analysis of user feedback and user logs indicates that the SMARTEN systsem contributed to enhancing the discovery of new knowledge within the literature, while maintaining cognitive load at manageable levels for medical professionals and students. Furthermore, our SMARTEN system effectively identifies relevant publications that would typically appear far down in PubMed search rankings, consistently positioning them within the top 10 results.
conclusionThis study presents the SMARTEN framework for the automated analysis of large volumes of academic literature based on the semantic contents of individual publications via cluster-based topic modelling. This enables the expediting of literature review for busy medical experts, while also enabling the discovery of new knowledge which would otherwise have gone unnoticed in the wealth of research available online. We evaluate the system developed based on this framework in an experimental study with medical experts, to reinforce the benefit that this framework provides and to identify improvements for further research.
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.