Artificial intelligence's contribution to biomedical literature search: revolutionizing or complicating?
There is a growing number of articles about conversational AI (i.e., ChatGPT) for generating scientific literature reviews and summaries. Yet, comparative evidence lags its wide adoption by many clinicians and researchers. We explored ChatGPT's utility for literature search from an end-user per...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | PLOS Digital Health |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000849 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849327814398967808 |
|---|---|
| author | Rui Yip Young Joo Sun Alexander G Bassuk Vinit B Mahajan |
| author_facet | Rui Yip Young Joo Sun Alexander G Bassuk Vinit B Mahajan |
| author_sort | Rui Yip |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | There is a growing number of articles about conversational AI (i.e., ChatGPT) for generating scientific literature reviews and summaries. Yet, comparative evidence lags its wide adoption by many clinicians and researchers. We explored ChatGPT's utility for literature search from an end-user perspective through the lens of clinicians and biomedical researchers. We quantitatively compared basic versions of ChatGPT's utility against conventional search methods such as Google and PubMed. We further tested whether ChatGPT user-support tools (i.e., plugins, web-browsing function, prompt-engineering, and custom-GPTs) could improve its response across four common and practical literature search scenarios: (1) high-interest topics with an abundance of information, (2) niche topics with limited information, (3) scientific hypothesis generation, and (4) for newly emerging clinical practices questions. Our results demonstrated that basic ChatGPT functions had limitations in consistency, accuracy, and relevancy. User-support tools showed improvements, but the limitations persisted. Interestingly, each literature search scenario posed different challenges: an abundance of secondary information sources in high interest topics, and uncompelling literatures for new/niche topics. This study tested practical examples highlighting both the potential and the pitfalls of integrating conversational AI into literature search processes, and underscores the necessity for rigorous comparative assessments of AI tools in scientific research. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-53477486debf45cea9b72fecc2b7cba3 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2767-3170 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLOS Digital Health |
| spelling | doaj-art-53477486debf45cea9b72fecc2b7cba32025-08-20T03:47:45ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLOS Digital Health2767-31702025-05-0145e000084910.1371/journal.pdig.0000849Artificial intelligence's contribution to biomedical literature search: revolutionizing or complicating?Rui YipYoung Joo SunAlexander G BassukVinit B MahajanThere is a growing number of articles about conversational AI (i.e., ChatGPT) for generating scientific literature reviews and summaries. Yet, comparative evidence lags its wide adoption by many clinicians and researchers. We explored ChatGPT's utility for literature search from an end-user perspective through the lens of clinicians and biomedical researchers. We quantitatively compared basic versions of ChatGPT's utility against conventional search methods such as Google and PubMed. We further tested whether ChatGPT user-support tools (i.e., plugins, web-browsing function, prompt-engineering, and custom-GPTs) could improve its response across four common and practical literature search scenarios: (1) high-interest topics with an abundance of information, (2) niche topics with limited information, (3) scientific hypothesis generation, and (4) for newly emerging clinical practices questions. Our results demonstrated that basic ChatGPT functions had limitations in consistency, accuracy, and relevancy. User-support tools showed improvements, but the limitations persisted. Interestingly, each literature search scenario posed different challenges: an abundance of secondary information sources in high interest topics, and uncompelling literatures for new/niche topics. This study tested practical examples highlighting both the potential and the pitfalls of integrating conversational AI into literature search processes, and underscores the necessity for rigorous comparative assessments of AI tools in scientific research.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000849 |
| spellingShingle | Rui Yip Young Joo Sun Alexander G Bassuk Vinit B Mahajan Artificial intelligence's contribution to biomedical literature search: revolutionizing or complicating? PLOS Digital Health |
| title | Artificial intelligence's contribution to biomedical literature search: revolutionizing or complicating? |
| title_full | Artificial intelligence's contribution to biomedical literature search: revolutionizing or complicating? |
| title_fullStr | Artificial intelligence's contribution to biomedical literature search: revolutionizing or complicating? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Artificial intelligence's contribution to biomedical literature search: revolutionizing or complicating? |
| title_short | Artificial intelligence's contribution to biomedical literature search: revolutionizing or complicating? |
| title_sort | artificial intelligence s contribution to biomedical literature search revolutionizing or complicating |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000849 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ruiyip artificialintelligencescontributiontobiomedicalliteraturesearchrevolutionizingorcomplicating AT youngjoosun artificialintelligencescontributiontobiomedicalliteraturesearchrevolutionizingorcomplicating AT alexandergbassuk artificialintelligencescontributiontobiomedicalliteraturesearchrevolutionizingorcomplicating AT vinitbmahajan artificialintelligencescontributiontobiomedicalliteraturesearchrevolutionizingorcomplicating |