SynthesisFrontiers in big data2026
Definitional ambiguity in cognitive warfare: a critical and systematic conceptual review through ideal-type analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in big data, 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
Cognitive warfare is a relatively new concept in both military and academic discourse. The article's purpose is to advance conceptual clarity regarding cognitive warfare and to support future policy-oriented and academic research that strengthens the field's conceptual and methodological foundations, understood here as the broader domain of communication and defense studies concerned with informational and cognitive forms of contestation. This article examines how the notion is conceptualized within the emerging body of research, drawing on a systematic literature review. With support from LLM-assisted analysis, the study employs an exploratory methodology to identify both conceptual commonalities and points of divergence. The review indicates that cognitive warfare remains an underdeveloped research field, characterized by broad assumptions and limited scientific rigor. While the concept may represent a reframing of long-standing practices, it may also serve a political function by drawing renewed attention to forms of influence and conflict that have been overshadowed in recent decades. The article concludes by outlining avenues for future interdisciplinary research, emphasizing the need for conceptual clarity, empirical operationalization, and a more nuanced understanding of how adversaries themselves articulate and employ cognitive warfare.
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.