ArticleFindings of ACL. ACL2025
Natural Language Processing in Support of Evidence-based Medicine: A Scoping Review.
Article in Findings of ACL. ACL, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Retrieval-Augmented Generation without Taxonomy-based Error Categorization.Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · 2026Article
- A data-driven method for research trend analysis in a scientific discipline: Application to the journal of biomedical informatics.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2026Article
- Cell phenotypes in the biomedical literature: a systematic analysis and text mining corpus.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- A Disease-Aware Dual-Stage Framework for Chest X-ray Report Generation.Proceedings of the ... AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is at the forefront of modern healthcare, emphasizing the use of the best available scientific evidence to guide clinical decisions. Due to the sheer volume and rapid growth of medical literature and the high cost of curation, there is a critical need to investigate Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods to identify, appraise, synthesize, summarize, and disseminate evidence in EBM. This survey presents an in-depth review of 129 research studies on leveraging NLP for EBM, illustrating its pivotal role in enhancing clinical decision-making processes. The paper systematically explores how NLP supports the five fundamental steps of EBM - Ask, Acquire, Appraise, Apply, and Assess. The review not only identifies current limitations within the field but also proposes directions for future research, emphasizing the potential for NLP to revolutionize EBM by refining evidence extraction, evidence synthesis, appraisal, summarization, enhancing data comprehensibility, and facilitating a more efficient clinical workflow.
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.