ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2021
Controversial Trials First: Identifying Disagreement Between Clinical Guidelines and New Evidence.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural Language Processing in Support of Evidence-based Medicine: A Scoping Review.Findings of ACL. ACL · 2025Article
- High-precision information retrieval for rapid clinical guideline updates.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Utilizing ChatGPT as a scientific reasoning engine to differentiate conflicting evidence and summarize challenges in controversial clinical questions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical guidelines integrate latest evidence to support clinical decision-making. As new research findings are published at an increasing rate, it would be helpful to detect when such results disagree with current guideline recommendations. In this work, we describe a software system for the automatic identification of disagreement between clinical guidelines and published research. A critical feature of the system is the extraction and cross-lingual normalization of information through natural language processing. The initial version focuses on the detection of cancer treatments in clinical trial reports that are not addressed in oncology guidelines. We evaluate the relevance of trials retrieved by our system retrospectively by comparison with historic guideline updates and also prospectively through manual evaluation by guideline experts. The system improves precision over state-of-the-art literature research strategies while maintaining near-total recall. Detailed error analysis highlights challenges for fine-grained clinical information extraction, in particular when extracting population definitions for tumor-agnostic therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35308948PMC8861732What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.