ReviewIntegrative medicine research2026
Integration of large language models and evidence-based Chinese medicine: A scoping review.
Review in Integrative medicine research, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) have attracted increasing attention in medical research and clinical practice and have been applied to processes related to evidence-based medicine (EBM). However, the extent of their integration with evidence-based Chinese medicine (CM) remains unclear. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data from 30 November 2022 to 31 January 2026, with supplementary searches conducted in Google Scholar. Studies were included if they applied LLMs to EBM processes within a CM context or investigated LLMs in CM using established evidence-based research designs. Descriptive analysis summarized study characteristics, and findings were mapped according to the evidence ecosystem framework. Results: A total of 12 studies published between 2023 and 2025 were included. Most studies integrated LLMs into different stages of the EBM workflow within a CM context. At the evidence generation stage, studies explored the role of LLMs in identifying research priorities. At the evidence synthesis stage, LLM performance was evaluated in literature screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. At the evidence translation stage, studies evaluated the performance of LLMs in guideline-related question answering and recommendation generation. At the evidence implementation stage, LLMs combined with knowledge graphs or retrieval-augmented generation were used to develop intelligent question-answering systems based on CM guidelines or standards. Conclusion: Existing studies suggest that LLMs have begun to be explored across multiple stages of evidence-based CM research and show potential for improving evidence synthesis efficiency and supporting knowledge translation and application. Protocol registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ztbd5/overview).
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.