ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
A large language model-enhanced knowledge graph framework for text-implied public health policy gap screening: digital health executability, behavioral accessibility, and service-support coverage.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening for text-implied structural gaps in policy documents is an important component of public health policy review, particularly when implementation relies on online portals, digital identity verification, remote-care platforms, or self-service processes. However, existing text classifiers, large language model prompting methods, and retrieval-based approaches often provide document-level predictions or general explanations without explicitly representing key elements, relations, and potentially missing links in policy implementation. This study proposes Policy Review Process-Knowledge Graph (PRP-KG), a large language model-enhanced knowledge graph framework for identifying structural-gap review signals across policy clauses, implementation processes, and target populations. PRP-KG segments policy documents into clauses, extracts implementation-related elements using a predefined policy-execution schema, and grounds the extracted entities and relations in source evidence spans. The validated elements are then organized into a three-layer knowledge graph. A graph-consistency feedback mechanism revises missing or schema-inconsistent triples, after which structural-gap patterns identify text-implied gaps in execution specification, accessibility safeguards, and service-support coverage. Experiments on policy-text annotation benchmarks constructed from public sources show that, under the evaluated settings, PRP-KG achieves lower prediction error and more accurate identification of high-priority text-implied review signals than most comparison methods. Controlled analyses indicate comparatively stable performance under the evaluated perturbations and provide evidence-linked outputs that can be inspected by policy reviewers.
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.