Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41345869›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

MelAnalyze: fact-checking melatonin claims using large language models and natural language inference.

Nikitha Karkera, Samik Ghosh, Germaine Escames, Sucheendra K Palaniappan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nikitha KarkeraSBX Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.
Samik GhoshSBX Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.
Germaine EscamesUniversity of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Sucheendra K PalaniappanSBX Corporation, Tokyo, Japan. sucheendra@sbi.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the explosion of health related information in mainstream discourse, distinguishing accurate health-related claims from misinformation is important. Using computational tools and algorithms to help is key. Our focus in this paper is on the hormone Melatonin which is claimed to have broad health benefits and largely sold as a supplement. This paper introduces ‘MelAnalyze,’ a framework for using generative and transformer-based deep learning models adapted as a natural language inference (NLI) task, to semi-automate the fact-checking of general melatonin claims. MelAnalyze is built upon a comprehensive collection of melatonin-related scientific abstracts from PubMed for validation. The framework incorporates components for precise extraction of information from scientific literature, semantic similarity and NLI. At its core, MelAnalyze leverages pretrained NLI models that are fine-tuned on melatonin-specific claims along with semantic search based on vectorized representation of the articles. The models are tested on melatonin claims from Google and Amazon product description to evaluate the system’s utility. The best model, fine-tuned versions of LLaMA1, attain good precision, recall, and F1-score of 0.92. We also introduce a web-based prototype tool to visualize evidence and support fact-checking algorithm evaluation. In summary, we show MelAnalyze’s role in empowering users and researchers to assess melatonin-related claims using evidence-based decision-making.

Indexed as

Data MiningLarge Language ModelsMelatoninNatural Language ProcessingHumansMelatoninBiomedical text miningMelatonin fact checkingRetrieval-augmented verificationScientific claim validationSentence-level fact checking

Identifiers

PMID41345869
PMCPMC12875012

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.