ArticleJAMIA open2026
Data-reflector: an agentic exploratory data analysis platform for researchers.
Article in JAMIA open, 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
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Exploratory data analysis (EDA) is foundational to clinical research yet inaccessible to clinician-scientists without programming training. Existing large language model (LLM) tools improve accessibility but struggle with hallucinations. We developed and evaluated data reflector (DR), a hybrid agentic platform pairing natural language interaction with deterministic statistical computation. Materials and Methods: Data reflector restricts the LLM to intent interpretation, tool selection, and filter parsing while routing all numerical computation through predefined deterministic functions executed locally. We piloted DR with 6 participants of diverse technical backgrounds across 6 clinical (MIMIC-IV, eICU Collaborative Research Database, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) and nonclinical (energy, COVID-19, urban mobility) datasets, assessing usability (system usability scale, SUS), task completion time, analytical output correctness against participant-generated manual reference results, hallucination prevention, and independent reproducibility by a second operator. A head-to-head comparison with ChatGPT 5.3 chatbot was also conducted. Results: Data reflector achieved a mean SUS of 94.58, with reduced task completion time across all evaluable participants. Statistical outputs and generated distribution curves demonstrated complete agreement with participant-generated manual reference results across all evaluable outputs. Independent reexecution by a different operator using independently constructed prompts also demonstrated complete agreement with the original DR outputs across all evaluated tasks. Hallucination-prevention safeguards correctly declined out-of-scope and impossible queries. ChatGPT produced incomplete, internally inconsistent outputs on identical tasks where DR returned complete, accurate results. Discussion: Data reflector's architectural separation of LLM reasoning from numerical computation removes dependence on prompt phrasing, session history, and stochastic LLM sampling while preserving conversational accessibility, addressing reproducibility limitations of general-purpose LLM tools. Conclusion: Data reflector offers a practical pattern for reproducible, accessible artificial intelligence-assisted EDA across heterogeneous data sources in modern clinical and translational research.
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.