Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41969922›Full record

ArticleJournal of the advanced practitioner in oncology2026

The Promise of Artificial Intelligence to Aid in Systematic Reviews: An Examination of Scopus AI.

Lydia T Madsen, John C Carter, Sheeba Cantanelli, Christine Hong, Angela Bazzell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology, 2026. 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.

Lydia T MadsenFrom Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
John C CarterFrom Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Sheeba CantanelliFrom Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Christine HongFrom Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Angela BazzellFrom Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews are a critical tool in oncology practice to facilitate informed clinical decision-making, synthesize current research, and guide practice policy. To facilitate early exploration of a literature query or topic, Scopus Artificial Intelligence (AI), which was introduced in 2024 and is subscription-based, provides a new tool for researchers and providers to access current data or begin a systematic review topic exploration. The following article is intended to familiarize advanced practice providers (APPs) with both the recently released AI tool of Scopus AI and associated AI interface capabilities with literature search methodologies. Scopus AI is embedded within the extensive resources of Scopus, an established search engine database. Scopus AI simplifies a topic search by allowing a user to enter the question or phrase in natural language, or ordinary spoken or written language. It then translates the query into a vector and/or keyword search. Scopus AI summarizes the output results to include bullet points, numbered highlights, and conclusions. Associated citations, with internal URL links to articles embedded within the Scopus database, allow for confidence in the output summary. Pivotal or landmark study foundational document citations are also listed. The utilization of AI tools can aid APP researchers and clinicians to expedite steps in the systematic review process. Multiple tools are available to assist the researcher; Scopus AI is one of the tools that can be used to assist in streamlining specific aspects such as the initial tasks and literature search steps of the systematic review development process.

Identifiers

PMID41969922
PMCPMC13064869

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.