ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
A neural-symbolic AI agent system for biomedical concept mapping.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Concept mapping links free-text descriptions to standardized concepts in biomedical terminologies and ontologies. Existing approaches fall into two main categories: rule-based systems, which are interpretable but struggle with ambiguity and scalability, and learning-based methods, which leverage contextual signals but perform poorly on long-tail concepts due to limited training data and offer limited explainability. To address these limitations, we propose Medical Concept Mapping (MCM), a novel agentic workflow that uses language models to rephrase ambiguous mentions into explicit, standardized descriptions prior to concept linking. This reformulation substantially improves mapping accuracy for underrepresented and abbreviated concepts. Across multiple benchmarks, MedMentions, ST21pv, and MCN, MCM outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, including KrissBERT, SciSpaCy, and USAGI, achieving Recall@1 scores of 63.3, 60.0, and 67.9, respectively. On zero-shot abbreviated mentions, MCM maintains strong performance, exceeding baseline Recall@1 by up to 24.8 points. Human evaluation confirms the quality of LLM-generated expansions: 79.4% were rated as reasonable and useful, and GPT-OSS received the highest approval (85.1%). These results demonstrate that MCM enables more accurate, interpretable, and robust long-tail concept normalization for biomedical applications.
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.