Cited by 45Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Leveraging generative AI for clinical evidence synthesis needs to ensure trustworthiness

Open access
Zhang, Gongbo, Jin, Qiao, Jered McInerney, Denis, Chen, Yong, Wang, Fei, Cole, Curtis L., Yang, Qian, Wang, Yanshan +6 more·2024·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine promises to improve the quality of healthcare by empowering medical decisions and practices with the best available evidence. The rapid growth of medical evidence, which can be obtained from various sources, poses a challenge in collecting, appraising, and synthesizing the evidential information. Recent advancements in generative AI, exemplified by large language models, hold promise in facilitating the arduous task. However, developing accountable, fair, and inclusive models remains a complicated undertaking. In this perspective, we discuss the trustworthiness of generative AI in the context of automated summarization of medical evidence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104640

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs struggle to generate accurate and up-to-date responses on current topics due to outdated knowledge, lack of domain-specific expertise, or hallucination.

    “LLMs struggle to generate accurate and up-to-date responses on current topics, due to outdated knowledge, lack of domain-specific expertise, or hallucination13–17.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [4]Wallace BC, Dahabreh IJ, Schmid CH, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Chapter 12 - Modernizing Evidence Synthesis for Evidence-Based Medicine. In: Greenes RA, editor. Clinical Decision Support (Second Edition). Oxford: Academic Press; 2014. pp. 339– 361.
  2. [28]Lewis P, Perez E, Piktus A, Petroni F, Karpukhin V, Goyal N, Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Red Hook, NY, USA: Curran Associates Inc.; 2020. pp. 9459– 9474.
  3. [33]Bengio S, Vinyals O, Jaitly N, Shazeer N. Scheduled sampling for sequence prediction with recurrent Neural networks. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 1. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press; 2015. pp. 1171– 1179.
  4. [44]Buolamwini J, Gebru T. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. In: Friedler SA, Wilson C, editors. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR; 23–24 Feb 2018. pp. 77– 91.
  5. [59]Topsakal O, Akinci TC. Creating large language model applications utilizing langchain: A primer on developing llm apps fast. of the International Conference on Applied …. 2023. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oguzhan-Topsakal/publication/372669736_Creating_Large_Language_Model_Applications_Utilizing_LangChain_A_Primer_on_Developing_LLM_Apps_Fast/links/64d114a840a524707ba4a419/Creating-Large-Language-Model-Applications-Utilizing-LangChain-A-Primer-on-Developing-LLM-Apps-Fast.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, G., Jin, Q., Jered McInerney, D., Chen, Y., Wang, F., Cole, C. L., Yang, Q., Wang, Y., Malin, B. A., Peleg, M., Wallace, B. C., Lu, Z., Weng, C., & Peng, Y.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Weng, Chunhua
  • Peng, Yifan
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-05
Volume
153
Pages
104640
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4394688596
Cited by
40
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11
FWCI
3.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM009886, R01LM014344, R01LM014306)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
generative AI, large language models, clinical evidence synthesis, trustworthiness, text summarization, medical evidence, evidence-based medicine, model accountability
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Evidence-Based Medicine, Trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review