ArticleCureus2025
Potential and Limitations of Large Language Models for Medical Literature Analysis: A Preliminary Investigation.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective While Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise for various medical applications, their black-box nature and the difficulty of reproducing results have been noted as significant challenges. In contrast, conventional text mining is a well-established methodology, yet its mastery remains time-consuming. This study aimed to determine if an LLM could achieve literature analysis outcomes comparable to those from traditional text mining, thereby clarifying both its utility and inherent limitations. Methods We analyzed the abstracts of 5,112 medical papers retrieved from PubMed using the single keyword "text mining." We used Google Gemini 2.5 (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) and instructed it to extract distinctive words, concepts, trends, and co-occurrence network concepts. These results were then qualitatively compared with those obtained from conventional text mining tools, VOSviewer and KH Coder. Results Google Gemini appeared to conceptually aggregate individual words and identify research trends. The concepts for co-occurrence networks also showed visual similarity to the networks generated by the traditional tools. However, the LLM's analytical output was based on its own unique interpretation and could not be directly compared with the statistically derived co-occurrence patterns. Furthermore, since this study relied on a visual comparison of network diagrams rather than rigorous quantitative analysis, the conclusions remain qualitative. Conclusion Google Gemini indicated an ability to extract keywords, concepts, and trends. A co-occurrence network visually similar to those generated by conventional text mining tools was created. While it showed particular strengths in conceptual summarization and trend detection, its limitations - including its black-box nature, reproducibility challenges, and subjective interpretations - became apparent. With a proper understanding of these constraints, LLMs may serve as a valuable complementary tool, with the potential to accelerate literature analysis in medical research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.