ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Validation of an AI-Assisted Framework for Systematic Bias Assessment in Observational Studies.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 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
rationaleThe rapid expansion of medical literature has led to variability and contradictions in study findings, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish meaningful signals from noise. Much of this variability arises from methodological limitations, including confounding, selection bias, and reverse causation. Although artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted tools exist for risk-of-bias assessment, most are designed for systematic reviews and are not tailored to identifying epidemiologic biases in observational studies. Structured, scalable approaches are needed to evaluate validity in real-world evidence research. AIMS AND
objectivesTo develop and validate EpiVise, an AI-assisted, expert-informed, rule-based framework for identifying major sources of bias in pharmacoepidemiologic studies and to assess its agreement with expert epidemiologist evaluations.
methodsRecently published pharmacoepidemiologic studies from high-impact journals (post- July 2025) were independently evaluated by EpiVise and two expert epidemiologists across predefined bias domains, including measured confounding, confounding by indication, selection bias, immortal time bias, and disease latency bias. Agreement was assessed using weighted kappa statistics. In addition, synthetic study scenarios with predefined embedded biases were constructed to evaluate framework performance under controlled conditions.
resultsAmong published studies (10 studies; 60 ratings), agreement between EpiVise and expert assessments was substantial (weighted κ = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.87). Twelve ratings (20.0%) were discordant, all limited to adjacent categories. In synthetic scenarios (10 studies; 50 ratings), agreement was also substantial, with 40 of 50 ratings concordant (80.0%) and a weighted κ of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.61-0.83).
conclusionEpiVise demonstrated substantial agreement with expert epidemiologist assessments in both published and synthetic study evaluations. As a scalable and reproducible framework for identifying common epidemiologic biases, EpiVise may enhance evidence appraisal, peer review, and clinical or regulatory decision-making. Further validation across broader study designs and therapeutic areas is warranted.
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.