01/19/2023
The future of systematic reviews and clinical evidence is uniquely human. However, as AI technology matures, its predictions and mimicry could begin to align so closely with the truth that we just start calling them accurate. Certainly, AI is already surpassing the accuracy of humans at certain tasks. However, it’s important to remember that this tool is still just an algorithm, meaning it will always require human input. In the realm of systematic reviews especially, human expertise is needed to provide the initial search concepts of interest, identify qualitative concepts we want to contrast across studies, and indicate the quantitative data elements for which we want to compute treatment effects. The tools at hand may evolve, but it’s always going to be the human researcher who dreams up and structures the study.
With the promising results in mind, we at Nested Knowledge will certainly consider ways to incorporate AI like this into our software in places where perfect accuracy matters less, or where the results of automation can be checked for accuracy by reviewers. It’s very possible that ChatGPT or something like it could integrate directly into our platform and offer more intelligent suggestions, better predictions, and quick summaries in the very near future.
Read more in our latest blog post: https://hubs.ly/Q01yCbPW0