Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2025
|
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17307234 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866902296467603456 |
|---|---|
| author | Westrick, Jennifer Hilton, Schuyler Juarez, Lorena |
| author_facet | Westrick, Jennifer Hilton, Schuyler Juarez, Lorena |
| contents | <div> <p><strong><span lang="EN-US"><span>Introduction:</span></span></strong><span><strong> </strong> </span><span lang="EN-US"><span>Medical and nursing students are using artificial intelligence (AI) search tools to conduct scholarly research. How does this process compare to using PubMed? This research will compare the results of a PubMed search to those from several AI search queries. Results will be analyzed to gauge the quality and accuracy of the returned results.</span></span><span> </span></p> </div> <div> <p><strong><span lang="EN-US"><span>Background:</span></span></strong><span><strong> </strong> </span><span lang="EN-US"><span>Artificial intelligence is affecting the </span><span>searching</span><span> habits of students, researchers, faculty, physicians, and other patron groups. </span></span><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span></span><span lang="EN-US"><span>As medical librarians, how do we guide patrons in using these tools? This poster offers a data-based comparison of four </span><span>popular </span><span>AI tools (</span><span>Elicit</span><span>, Consensus</span><span>.ai</span><span>, </span><span>SciSpace</span><span>, and </span><span>OpenEvidence</span><span>) and PubMed to begin to answer that ques</span><span>t</span><span>ion.</span></span><span> </span></p> </div> <div> <p><strong><span lang="EN-US"><span>Description:</span></span></strong><span> </span><span lang="EN-US"><span>Several clinical questions will be entered into the AI search engines. Data will be </span><span>collected</span><span> and results will be evaluated </span><span>and compared.</span></span><span> </span></p> </div> <div> <p><strong><span lang="EN-US"><span>Program Conclusion:</span></span></strong><span> </span><span lang="EN-US"><span>PubMed’s detailed search format allows researchers to fine-tune their search for a deeper, more refined set of results. AI offers a surface-level set of results for users who are pressed for time or </span><span>don’t</span><span> have the skill set to create a proper search strategy. The AI search engines returned results in paragraphs with linked citations. PubMed returns individual citations </span><span>without</span><span> summaries, requiring researchers to use</span><span> and</span><span> develop skills to evaluate and assimilate information. The question of “PubMed vs AI” is much larger than can be addressed in a poster, but this preliminary exploration </span><span>provides</span><span> interesting insights.</span></span><span> </span></p> </div> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_17307234 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | PubMed vs Artificial Intelligence: Comparison of Search Results Westrick, Jennifer Hilton, Schuyler Juarez, Lorena <div> <p><strong><span lang="EN-US"><span>Introduction:</span></span></strong><span><strong> </strong> </span><span lang="EN-US"><span>Medical and nursing students are using artificial intelligence (AI) search tools to conduct scholarly research. How does this process compare to using PubMed? This research will compare the results of a PubMed search to those from several AI search queries. Results will be analyzed to gauge the quality and accuracy of the returned results.</span></span><span> </span></p> </div> <div> <p><strong><span lang="EN-US"><span>Background:</span></span></strong><span><strong> </strong> </span><span lang="EN-US"><span>Artificial intelligence is affecting the </span><span>searching</span><span> habits of students, researchers, faculty, physicians, and other patron groups. </span></span><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span></span><span lang="EN-US"><span>As medical librarians, how do we guide patrons in using these tools? This poster offers a data-based comparison of four </span><span>popular </span><span>AI tools (</span><span>Elicit</span><span>, Consensus</span><span>.ai</span><span>, </span><span>SciSpace</span><span>, and </span><span>OpenEvidence</span><span>) and PubMed to begin to answer that ques</span><span>t</span><span>ion.</span></span><span> </span></p> </div> <div> <p><strong><span lang="EN-US"><span>Description:</span></span></strong><span> </span><span lang="EN-US"><span>Several clinical questions will be entered into the AI search engines. Data will be </span><span>collected</span><span> and results will be evaluated </span><span>and compared.</span></span><span> </span></p> </div> <div> <p><strong><span lang="EN-US"><span>Program Conclusion:</span></span></strong><span> </span><span lang="EN-US"><span>PubMed’s detailed search format allows researchers to fine-tune their search for a deeper, more refined set of results. AI offers a surface-level set of results for users who are pressed for time or </span><span>don’t</span><span> have the skill set to create a proper search strategy. The AI search engines returned results in paragraphs with linked citations. PubMed returns individual citations </span><span>without</span><span> summaries, requiring researchers to use</span><span> and</span><span> develop skills to evaluate and assimilate information. The question of “PubMed vs AI” is much larger than can be addressed in a poster, but this preliminary exploration </span><span>provides</span><span> interesting insights.</span></span><span> </span></p> </div> |
| title | PubMed vs Artificial Intelligence: Comparison of Search Results |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17307234 |