ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Medical Article Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence.
Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The worthiness of a medical article is not known until it is read and critically evaluated. A process using artificial intelligence (AI) was developed and assessed to do that for a specific article. Methods: A medical article was uploaded to an AI large language model program with instructions to answer specific bounded questions about that article only, its methodological components, assessment of findings, and appropriateness and validity of conclusions. Fifty articles were evaluated and compared using AI and human assessment. Results: Agreement was found 89% of the time. Disagreements were concerned with word use, context, and by experiences and human memory. No AI fabrications occurred. Conclusion: This method eliminated, or at least heightened awareness of the problems, biases, limitations, and confounders of an article to be read. Isolation and validity of the components that collectively produce the conclusions from what is found and said in an article is more clearly delineated by a step-by-step process, eliminates human legacy conflicts, and quickly determines the legitimacy of conclusions.
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.