Jodi Schneider

Neil R. Smalheiser, Joe D. Menke, Arthur W. Holt et al.

Objectives. Major research and implementation efforts have been devoted to indexing articles according to the major topics discussed, but much less effort to indexing their publication types and study designs (collectively, PTs). In this Perspective, we discuss how indexing PTs differs from topical MeSH indexing and requires a different approach. Materials and Methods. Rather than focus on the technical aspects of machine learning-based indexing models, we emphasize the goals and purposes for which biomedical articles are indexed, and the surprisingly thorny question of how indexing systems should be evaluated. Results. Topical Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms are assigned to articles that cover the major topics discussed; when more than one term is applicable, only the most specific term is assigned. In contrast, PTs are assigned to articles that have a given structure or use a particular design. To meet the needs of end-users, particularly groups involved in evidence syntheses, PT indexing needs to be comprehensive and employ probabilistic goodness-of-fit prediction scores. Whereas existing NLM hierarchies place publication types and study design-related terms on separate trees from each other, we have created a unified hierarchy that permits more appropriate retrieval via automatic expansion. Discussion. Automated PT indexing systems should allow users to input article records or full-text PDFs and receive scores in real time. This will offer consistent indexing across bibliographic databases, as well as preprints and unpublished manuscripts. Conclusions. Automated PT indexing systems, properly designed and implemented, hold the promise of greatly improving the retrieval of biomedical articles, saving substantial effort when writing evidence syntheses and benefiting other users as well.

Elena Musi, Nadin Kokciyan, Khalid Al-Khatib et al.

In this position paper, we advocate for the development of conversational technology that is inherently designed to support and facilitate argumentative processes. We argue that, at present, large language models (LLMs) are inadequate for this purpose, and we propose an ideal technology design aimed at enhancing argumentative skills. This involves re-framing LLMs as tools to exercise our critical thinking skills rather than replacing them. We introduce the concept of \textit{reasonable parrots} that embody the fundamental principles of relevance, responsibility, and freedom, and that interact through argumentative dialogical moves. These principles and moves arise out of millennia of work in argumentation theory and should serve as the starting point for LLM-based technology that incorporates basic principles of argumentation.