Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

MedSEBA builds medical answers whose every key point can be traced to a retrieved PubMed study, with each study labeled as supporting, refuting, or neutral toward the question, and charts showing how the research consensus has shifted over

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

MedSEBA is a RAG-based medical question-answering system that provides cited key arguments, per-study stance labels, and temporal consensus visualization, evaluated by a 10-person user study.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A neat stance-aware medical Q&A demo, but the 'evidence-based' label rests on unvalidated GPT-4o annotations and a ten-person usability study. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.00414 v1 pith:DPRDWEVO submitted 2025-08-30 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IR

MedSEBA: Synthesizing Evidence-Based Answers Grounded in Evolving Medical Literature

Juraj Vladika , Florian Matthes This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.IR
keywords medical question answeringretrieval-augmented generationevidence synthesisstance detectionPubMedlarge language modelsinformation retrievaluser study
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

MedSEBA's central claim is that trustworthiness in medical question answering can be built by grounding large-language-model summaries in a fixed set of retrieved research papers, labeling each paper's stance toward the question, and showing how that evidence has evolved over time. The system turns a user's medical question into a PubMed query, narrows the results to the 20 most relevant studies, and has GPT-4o write a structured answer with numbered references to those studies. It then shows users the balance of support and refutation among the retrieved studies and visualizes changes in that balance year by year. A ten-participant user study, including two medical experts, rated the system highly on usability and found the answers relevant, informative, and trustworthy. If the system's assumptions hold, it offers a template for health search that surfaces conflicting evidence instead of hiding it.

Core claim

The paper introduces MedSEBA and claims that evidence-based medical answers can be produced by combining biomedical query expansion with PubMed's relevance ranking, semantic reranking to 20 papers, GPT-4o synthesis, and per-study stance classification. The generated answer is structured into key points that cite numbered studies; below the answer, each study is shown with metadata, an AI-generated stance label (supports/refutes/neutral), and the single most relevant sentence from its abstract. Three charts display the distribution of stances and how support and refutation have evolved by year, with citations plotted against time. A ten-person user study found the system usable (SUS 81.7) and

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the multi-stage grounding pipeline: SciSpacy rewrites the user question into a Boolean PubMed query, PubMed returns 50 candidate papers, BMRetriever's biomedical embeddings rerank them to the 20 most similar, and GPT-4o writes the answer with numbered references while separately assigning each study a stance label. The final piece is sentence-level extraction, which pulls the one abstract sentence most relevant to the question, so every synthesized claim can be checked against its source. This pipeline is what carries the paper's claim that answers are evidence-based: the language model is constrained to speak from a fixed, visible set of retrieved studies.

Load-bearing premise

The reliability of the whole answer rests on GPT-4o correctly judging each study's stance toward the question and accurately summarizing it; the paper does not measure that judgment against expert ground truth.

What would settle it

Take 50 medical questions, have two medical experts independently label the stance of each of the top-20 retrieved PubMed studies, run MedSEBA's stance classifier on the same studies, and measure agreement; if the system's labels agree with the experts no better than chance, the 'evidence-based' claim is not supported.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Every key point in a generated answer carries a reference to one of the 20 retrieved studies, so the reasoning is auditable from the answer down to a specific sentence in an abstract.
  • The stacked stance charts give users a quantitative picture of how many of the most relevant studies support, refute, or are neutral toward the claim, rather than a single yes/no answer.
  • The time-series charts let researchers see whether evidence for a hypothesis is accumulating, weakening, or mixed across publication years.
  • Metadata such as publication year and citation count are presented alongside each study, giving users visible signals about the evidence's provenance and standing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond what the paper evaluates, the same pipeline could be run on a fixed, date-stamped corpus to turn MedSEBA into a monitoring tool for emerging reversals in medical consensus.
  • The stance labels could be stress-tested against expert annotations; if they hold up, the consensus charts become a lightweight exploratory substitute for a systematic review.
  • A next testable extension would compare decision quality rather than satisfaction: do lay users answer follow-up health questions more accurately after using MedSEBA than after a standard search engine?
  • The sentence-extraction step could be extended to generate the stance label from the extracted sentence itself, making each label auditable by showing the exact evidence behind it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. MedSEBA is a system demonstration paper describing an interactive AI pipeline that answers medical questions by retrieving 50 PubMed papers via an expanded Boolean query, semantically narrowing to 20 via BMRetriever, and using GPT-4o to generate a structured summary with per-document stance labels (support/refute/neutral), highlighted evidence sentences, and temporal visualizations of research consensus. The paper reports a small user study (n=10, two medical experts and eight CS graduate students) with an average SUS score of 81.7 versus the 68 benchmark (claimed t-test p<0.01) and positive Likert responses on relevance, stance-label sensibility, and summary quality. The central claims are that the system provides 'evidence-based' answers grounded in trustworthy studies and that users find it usable and trustworthy.

Significance. If the claimed properties are substantiated, MedSEBA would be a useful prototype for medical literature synthesis and stance-aware retrieval, and the public code/repository plus demonstration video are valuable for the demo-track community. The architecture is well-motivated, combining established retrieval components (SciSpacy, BMRetriever, PubMed, iCite, Semantic Scholar) with LLM synthesis and interactive visualization. The paper is honest about some weaknesses, such as summary completeness and sentence selection in Section 4. However, the strongest claims—'evidence-based' and the faithful temporal evolution of consensus—currently rest on unvalidated GPT-4o outputs and a small, non-representative user study. The strengths are real but the evidence presented does not yet establish the central value proposition at the level claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 (Answer Synthesis) and Section 3.3] The stance labels assigned by GPT-4o are never validated against any ground truth. The only comparative evidence is that a DeBERTa-v3 NLI model over-predicts the neutral class; this shows a baseline deficiency, not that GPT-4o labels are correct. Because the stacked bar charts, temporal support/refute visualizations, and the synthesized 'consensus' view are all downstream of these labels (Section 3.3, Figure 5), an unmeasured stance-label error rate directly threatens the paper's 'evidence-based' claim. Please add an evaluation against a labeled stance/claim-verification dataset or a human-annotated sample with inter-annotator agreement, reporting per-class precision/recall for support/refute/neutral.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Section 4] The claim that answers are 'grounded' because each statement cites bracketed references is not checked for reference-support correctness. The prompt in Table 1 instructs the model to cite exact studies, and the user study asks whether summaries are understandable/informative, but there is no audit of whether the cited abstracts actually entail the claims they are attached to. The paper itself concedes in Section 4 that summary completeness and relevant-sentence selection are weak points. A manual audit of, say, 20 generated answers—measuring what fraction of [n] citations point to abstracts that genuinely support the adjacent sentence—is needed before 'grounded' and 'evidence-based' can be claimed.
  3. [Section 3.3 (Visual Plots)] The temporal charts are presented as showing 'how the research consensus evolved through time,' but they are computed from the 20 documents selected by current-query semantic similarity, not from a representative or longitudinal sample of the literature on the topic. This selection bias means the year-by-year support/refute distribution may reflect retrieval artifacts rather than the true evolution of consensus. Please either qualify the visualization as 'selected retrieved studies' or add a more systematic sampling method to support the consensus-evolution claim.
  4. [Section 4 (User Study)] The statistical reporting is insufficient for the strength of the claims. The SUS average of 81.7 versus the 68 benchmark is reported as significant with p<0.01, but no standard deviation, confidence interval, or effect size is given, and the sample is only 10 in-house colleagues. The Likert percentages are said to be significant with a binomial test at p<0.05, but it is not stated which statements individually reached significance or how the test was applied. There is also no baseline system comparison, so the results cannot distinguish the contribution of MedSEBA's features from the general usefulness of an LLM-generated summary over PubMed abstracts. At minimum, report per-item counts, the SUS distribution, and temper the wording of 'significantly better' accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3] Typo: 'how has the research on the given hypothesis has developed through time' should be 'how the research ... has developed.' Also, 'support/refute labels for each featured year' is ambiguous; clarify that the years are those of the retrieved papers, not all years in the literature.
  2. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'The final stage of the pipeline focuses on enriching the selected 20 papers and synthesizing their content into an evidence-based answer' uses 'evidence-based' before evidence of correctness is provided; consider 'study-grounded' or similar.
  3. [Section 3.1] The term 'SciSpacy' should be spelled as 'scispaCy' or 'SciSpacy' consistently; also consider citing the specific model version used.
  4. [Section 4] The Likert statements are grouped as 'three on accuracy' and 'three on quality,' but the first three are phrased about user perception, not objective accuracy; rename the grouping to avoid overstating what was measured.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the system's central claim is an independent user-satisfaction measurement, and the self-citations supporting design choices are not load-bearing for that claim.

full rationale

MedSEBA does not derive a first-principles prediction; its central claims are that the system can synthesize PubMed-grounded answers and that users find it usable and trustworthy. The trustworthiness/usability claim is supported directly by the user study (SUS 81.7 vs. 68, t-test p<0.01; Likert items), which is an external measurement independent of the system's internal computations. The answer-synthesis pipeline (retrieval -> GPT-4o summary -> stance labels -> charts) does not fit any parameter and then rename that fit as a prediction; the GPT-4o outputs are generated artifacts, not quantities derived from the paper's equations. The paper's self-citations ([33], [34], [35]) support design choices such as PubMed reliability, metadata relevance, and the 20-document cutoff; these are heuristic choices, not the target claim. Even if those self-citations were weak, they do not make the evaluated usability claim true by construction. The paper honestly concedes limitations in Section 4, naming summary completeness and sentence selection as the weakest points, which further indicates that the evaluation is not a self-fulfilling derivation. The main substantive weakness is that GPT-4o stance labels and summary references are not validated against ground truth, but that is a correctness/robustness risk, not a circularity: no step reduces to its own input by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The system composes existing components (BMRetriever, SciSpacy, GPT-4o, PubMed API) and introduces no new entities. The design relies on assumptions about the reliability of PubMed, abstracts, citation metadata, and GPT-4o's judgments; these are asserted with citations or qualitative reasoning rather than independently validated here.

free parameters (2)
  • PubMed candidate pool size = 50
    Hand-chosen by the authors as the initial retrieval set before semantic filtering (Section 3.1).
  • Number of selected documents = 20
    Hand-chosen based on the authors' prior experiments [35] to balance coverage and noise in the synthesis (Section 3.1).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption PubMed abstracts are sufficient to capture main study findings
    Cited [36]; used in Section 3.1 to justify using abstracts rather than full texts for synthesis.
  • domain assumption Citation count and recency are indicators of study relevance and trustworthiness
    Cited [34] by the same authors; used to display metadata as trust indicators in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o produces reliable stance labels and summaries
    Assumed in Section 3.1 without external ground-truth validation; DeBERTa-v3 was rejected because it predicted neutral too often.
  • domain assumption PubMed is a reliable knowledge source for medical claim verification
    Cited [6,33]; foundational to the system's grounding strategy in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption The SUS benchmark of 68 is a valid threshold for digital health apps
    Cited [23,12]; used to interpret SUS scores in Section 4.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MedSEBA: Synthesizing Evidence-Based Answers Grounded in Evolving Medical Literature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DPRDWEVO

@misc{pith2026250900414,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MedSEBA: Synthesizing Evidence-Based Answers Grounded in Evolving Medical Literature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DPRDWEVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00414}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In the digital age, people often turn to the Internet in search of medical advice and recommendations. With the increasing volume of online content, it has become difficult to distinguish reliable sources from misleading information. Similarly, millions of medical studies are published every year, making it challenging for researchers to keep track of the latest scientific findings. These evolving studies can reach differing conclusions, which is not reflected in traditional search tools. To address these challenges, we introduce MedSEBA, an interactive AI-powered system for synthesizing evidence-based answers to medical questions. It utilizes the power of Large Language Models to generate coherent and expressive answers, but grounds them in trustworthy medical studies dynamically retrieved from the research database PubMed. The answers consist of key points and arguments, which can be traced back to respective studies. Notably, the platform also provides an overview of the extent to which the most relevant studies support or refute the given medical claim, and a visualization of how the research consensus evolved through time. Our user study revealed that medical experts and lay users find the system usable and helpful, and the provided answers trustworthy and informative. This makes the system well-suited for both everyday health questions and advanced research insights.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00414 by Florian Matthes, Juraj Vladika.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Workflow of the main functionality of the system – answering and analyzing user’s medical question. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Retrieved papers listed below the answer, with meta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Generated answer to the medical question incorpo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Document page shows more data about the paper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual charts help contextualize the state of research [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. Perplexity. https://www.perplexity.ai

    work page

  2. [2]

    Delesha M Carpenter, Lorie L Geryk, Annie T Chen, Rebekah H Nagler, Nathan F Dieckmann, and Paul KJ Han. 2016. Conflicting health information: a critical research need. Health Expectations 19, 6 (2016), 1173–1182

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Simon Colton, Amy Smith, Sebastian Berns, Ryan Murdock, and Michael Cook

    work page

  4. [4]

    Eurostat. 2020. One in Two EU Citizens Look for Health Information Online. Survey on the use of ICT in households and by individuals 2020 (2020). https: //ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20210406-1

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Rita González-Márquez, Luca Schmidt, Benjamin M Schmidt, Philipp Berens, and Dmitry Kobak. 2024. The landscape of biomedical research. Patterns 5, 6 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Rachel S Goodman, J Randall Patrinely, Cosby A Stone, Eli Zimmerman, Rebecca R Donald, Sam S Chang, Sean T Berkowitz, Avni P Finn, Eiman Jahangir, Elizabeth A Scoville, et al. 2023. Accuracy and reliability of chatbot responses to physician questions. JAMA network open 6, 10 (2023), e2336483–e2336483

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Zhijiang Guo, Michael Schlichtkrull, and Andreas Vlachos. 2022. A survey on automated fact-checking. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 10 (2022), 178–206

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Momchil Hardalov, Arnav Arora, Preslav Nakov, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2022. A Survey on Stance Detection for Mis-and Disinformation Identification. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022 . 1259–1277

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Anne-Wil K Harzing and Ron Van der Wal. 2008. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in science and environmental politics 8, 1 (2008), 61–73

    work page 2008

  10. [10]

    Naeemul Hassan, Gensheng Zhang, Fatma Arslan, Josue Caraballo, Damian Jimenez, Siddhant Gawsane, Shohedul Hasan, Minumol Joseph, Aaditya Kulkarni, Anil Kumar Nayak, et al . 2017. Claimbuster: The first-ever end-to-end fact- checking system. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 10, 12 (2017), 1945–1948

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. DeBERTaV3: Improv- ing DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharing. arXiv:2111.09543 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09543

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Maciej Hyzy, Raymond Bond, Maurice Mulvenna, Lu Bai, Alan Dix, Simon Leigh, and Sophie Hunt. 2022. System Usability Scale Benchmarking for Digital Health Apps: Meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 10, 8 (18 Aug 2022), e37290. doi:10. 2196/37290

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Ian Hutchins, and George Santangelo

    iCite, B. Ian Hutchins, and George Santangelo. 2019. iCite Database Snapshots (NIH Open Citation Collection). doi:10.35092/yhjcc.4586573.v68

    work page doi:10.35092/yhjcc.4586573.v68 2019

  14. [14]

    Diana Jabbour, Jad El Masri, Rashad Nawfal, Diana Malaeb, and Pascale Salameh

    work page

  15. [15]

    Rodney Kinney, Chloe Anastasiades, Russell Authur, Iz Beltagy, Jonathan Bragg, Alexandra Buraczynski, Isabel Cachola, Stefan Candra, Yoganand Chandrasekhar, Arman Cohan, et al . 2023. The semantic scholar open data platform. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10140 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Nikhil L Kolluri and Dhiraj Murthy. 2021. CoVerifi: A COVID-19 news verification system. Online Social Networks and Media 22 (2021), 100123

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    James R Lewis. 2018. The system usability scale: past, present, and future. Inter- national Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 34, 7 (2018), 577–590

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Nelson Liu, Tianyi Zhang, and Percy Liang. 2023. Evaluating Verifiability in Generative Search Engines. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Singapore, 7001–7025. doi:10.18653/ v1/2023.findings-emnlp.467

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Aijing Luo, Lu Qin, Yifeng Yuan, Zhengzijin Yang, Fei Liu, Panhao Huang, and Wenzhao Xie. 2022. The effect of online health information seeking on physician- patient relationships: systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research 24, 2 (2022), e23354

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Mark Neumann, Daniel King, Iz Beltagy, and Waleed Ammar. 2019. ScispaCy: Fast and Robust Models for Biomedical Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of the 18th BioNLP Workshop and Shared Task . 319–327

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Gordon Pennycook, Jonathon McPhetres, Yunhao Zhang, Jackson G Lu, and David G Rand. 2020. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Ex- perimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological science 31, 7 (2020), 770–780

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Konstantinos I Roumeliotis and Nikolaos D Tselikas. 2023. Chatgpt and open-ai models: A preliminary review. Future Internet 15, 6 (2023), 192

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Jeff Sauro. 2011. A practical guide to the system usability scale: Background, benchmarks & best practices . Measuring Usability LLC

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    Semantic Scholar. 2024. Semantic scholar

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Tim Schopf and Florian Matthes. 2024. NLP-KG: A System for Exploratory Search of Scientific Literature in Natural Language Processing. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations). 127–135

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Karan Singhal, Tao Tu, Juraj Gottweis, Rory Sayres, Ellery Wulczyn, Mohamed Amin, Le Hou, Kevin Clark, Stephen R Pfohl, Heather Cole-Lewis, et al . 2025. Toward expert-level medical question answering with large language models. Nature Medicine 31, 3 (2025), 943–950

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Briony Swire-Thompson and David Lazer. 2020. Public health and online misin- formation: challenges and recommendations. Annual review of public health 41 (2020), 433–451

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Richard J Sylvester, Steven E Canfield, Thomas BL Lam, Lorenzo Marconi, Steven MacLennan, Yuhong Yuan, Graeme MacLennan, John Norrie, Muhammad Imran Omar, Harman M Bruins, et al. 2017. Conflict of evidence: resolving discrepancies when findings from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses disagree. European urology 71, 5 (2017), 811–819

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    Gemini Team, Petko Georgiev, Ving Ian Lei, Ryan Burnell, Libin Bai, Anmol Gulati, Garrett Tanzer, Damien Vincent, Zhufeng Pan, Shibo Wang, et al. 2024. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Eleonora Teplinsky, Sara Beltrán Ponce, Emily K Drake, Ann Meredith Garcia, Stacy Loeb, GJ Van Londen, Deanna Teoh, Michael Thompson, Lidia Schapira, and Collaboration for Outcomes using Social Media in Oncology (COSMO). 2022. Online medical misinformation in cancer: distinguishing fact from fiction. JCO oncology practice 18, 8 (2022), 584–589

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Deependra K Thapa, Denis C Visentin, Rachel Kornhaber, Sancia West, and Michelle Cleary. 2021. The influence of online health information on health decisions: a systematic review. Patient education and counseling 104, 4 (2021), 770–784

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Juraj Vladika and Florian Matthes. 2023. Scientific Fact-Checking: A Survey of Resources and Approaches. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Toronto, Canada, 6215–6230. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.387

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.387 2023

  33. [33]

    Juraj Vladika and Florian Matthes. 2024. Comparing Knowledge Sources for Open-Domain Scientific Claim Verification. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , Yvette Graham and Matthew Purver (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, St. Julian’s, Malta,...

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Juraj Vladika and Florian Matthes. 2024. Improving Health Question Answering with Reliable and Time-Aware Evidence Retrieval. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024 . 4752–4763

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Juraj Vladika and Florian Matthes. 2025. On the Influence of Context Size and Model Choice in Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025, Luis Chiruzzo, Alan Ritter, and Lu Wang (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 6724–6736. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.f...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-naacl.375 2025

  36. [36]

    David Wadden, Shanchuan Lin, Kyle Lo, Lucy Lu Wang, Madeleine van Zuylen, Arman Cohan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Fact or Fiction: Verifying Scientific Claims. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , Bonnie Webber, Trevor Cohn, Yulan He, and Yang Liu (Eds.). Association for Computational Ling...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.609 2020

  37. [37]

    Xuan Wang, Yingjun Guan, Weili Liu, Aabhas Chauhan, Enyi Jiang, Qi Li, David Liem, Dibakar Sigdel, John Caufield, Peipei Ping, et al . 2020. Evidenceminer: Textual evidence discovery for life sciences. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations . 56–62

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Chih-Hsuan Wei, Alexis Allot, Po-Ting Lai, Robert Leaman, Shubo Tian, Ling Luo, Qiao Jin, Zhizheng Wang, Qingyu Chen, and Zhiyong Lu. 2024. PubTator 3.0: an AI-powered literature resource for unlocking biomedical knowledge. Nucleic Acids Research 52, W1 (2024), W540–W546

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Ho, Chao Zhang, and Carl Yang

    Ran Xu, Wenqi Shi, Yue Yu, Yuchen Zhuang, Yanqiao Zhu, May Dongmei Wang, Joyce C. Ho, Chao Zhang, and Carl Yang. 2024. BMRetriever: Tuning Large Lan- guage Models as Better Biomedical Text Retrievers. InProceedings of the 2024 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen (Eds.). Assoc...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.1241 2024

  40. [40]

    Lana Yeganova, Won Kim, Shubo Tian, Donald C Comeau, W John Wilbur, and Zhiyong Lu. 2025. LitSense 2.0: AI-powered biomedical information retrieval with sentence and passage level knowledge discovery. Nucleic Acids Research (2025), gkaf417

    work page 2025

  41. [2021]

    In Proceedings of the Inter- national Conference on Computational Creativity

    Generative search engines: Initial experiments. In Proceedings of the Inter- national Conference on Computational Creativity

    work page

  42. [2023]

    Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971-) 192, 1 (2023), 291–301

    Social media medical misinformation: impact on mental health and vac- cination decision among university students. Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971-) 192, 1 (2023), 291–301

    work page 1971

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.