ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Optimizing systematic reviews in health sciences education: a mentefact-based algorithmic framework.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Systematic reviews in health sciences education require methodological approaches that address the pedagogical and conceptual complexity of educational interventions, which often differ from conventional clinical review models. This study addresses the research question: Methodology: The proposed framework comprises three linked modules: domain modeling through a mentefact, computational prioritization through rule-based filtering, semantic embeddings and clustering, and human-verified extraction and synthesis. The framework integrates the Ordinal Research Domain (ORD) and Conceptual Density and Experience Index (C-DEX) metrics to support source prioritization and conceptual relevance assessment. The workflow was structured with reference to PRISMA 2020 principles of transparency and reproducibility; however, the article reports a methodological framework with a pilot application, not a complete PRISMA-compliant systematic review. Results: The framework was piloted in the topic of artificial intelligence in radiology education, a domain in which clinical, technical, and pedagogical terminologies frequently overlap. The pilot application showed that mentefact-guided filtering can improve conceptual alignment between the educational phenomenon under review and the screening strategy used to organize the evidence. Discussion: Incorporating conceptual and pedagogical logic, rather than relying only on lexical keyword matching, may improve the interpretive relevance of evidence synthesis in health sciences education. Conclusion: The framework is presented as a methodological proposal with a pilot application. Its performance requires validation in future studies using independent datasets, full reviewer-based reference standards, and formal metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, precision, recall, and inter-rater agreement.
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.