Hi #EvidenceSynthesis folks and #medlibs
You have about ten minutes to give feedback to the ESIC people
Link: https://qualtricsxm45bq73zl3.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_a4bGY6aWrCu8fMa
The Stage 3 reports are at https://evidencesynthesis.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ESE/pages/219217921/Stage+3+Reports
Since you don't have time to read them at this point, I will suggest some talking points:
1 The AI working group's suggestion of generic classifiers (to tag/retrieve/screen studies with a particular study design, population, setting, outcome, whatever) is one of the few ideas that are IMO both valuable and feasible
2 You can say that technical mechanisms will someday allow for an AI-led framework where human oversight is significantly reduced, yet evidence integrity remains uncompromised – but saying that doesn’t make people believe it.
3 Before we build https://xkcd.com/927/ in terms of literature databases, or ES data sharing standards, or ontologies -- let's reflect on the benefits of decentralization. Would the rest of the EBM world be worrying quite so much about US politics if not for the centrality of NCBI, NLM, PubMed, PMC, CDC, HICPAC, NIOSH, etc in global information networks?