How accurate are the paper citations?

The prompt instructs the AI to provide verifiable citations (Title, Journal, Year, PMID/DOI) and to clearly mark any uncertain information. However, AI models can sometimes generate inaccurate references. Always verify citations against PubMed or Google Scholar before using them.

What kind of topics work best?

Specific clinical or methodological topics work best (e.g., "machine learning in diabetes diagnosis" rather than just "diabetes"). If your topic is too broad, the AI will focus on the most active sub-areas.

Can I use this for my thesis literature review?

This prompt is designed for a quick overview to orient yourself in a field. For a comprehensive thesis-level review, consider it a starting point and supplement with your own systematic database searches.

How reliable are the AI-generated research opportunities?

AI models can enter 'storytelling mode' — generating research directions that sound credible but are not grounded in real literature gaps. This prompt guards against this by requiring each opportunity to be derived from a documented contradiction or limitation in the reviewed studies. Still, treat each suggestion as a hypothesis: search PubMed to confirm the gap exists before committing to a research direction.

How do I connect this survey result to my next research step?

Take the Research Opportunities as input for the PICO Question Builder template on this platform. First search each opportunity in PubMed to confirm the gap is real, then use PICO to structure it into a formal research question ready for grant applications or thesis proposals.

What should I put in Scope Constraints?

Scope Constraints is optional — leave it blank for a general survey. When you do fill it in, each line is a filter the AI applies to narrow the evidence. Useful examples: 'Only randomized controlled trials'; 'Adults aged 18–65'; 'Pediatric population (under 18)'; 'Published in the past 5 years'; 'Exclude retrospective studies'; 'Human studies only, no animal models'. Combine 2–4 constraints for a focused survey; too many may leave too few papers to analyze.

How do I refine the survey through multiple turns?

After the initial report, you can keep chatting in the same conversation to drill deeper. Ask things like 'expand Opportunity 2 into a feasibility plan', 'add citations for the RCT you mentioned in Hotspot 1', or 'compare this with findings in pediatric populations'. The AI preserves the scope statement, previously cited papers, and already-identified contradictions across turns — it will not silently reshuffle earlier citations. If a citation must be withdrawn, the AI will state so explicitly.

Quick Literature Survey -- medPrompt

Usage Guide

Fill in your research topic (be specific — e.g., 'GLP-1 receptor agonists and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes').
Click AI Run — receive a structured literature landscape report in the chat.
The report covers hotspots, representative papers, and research opportunities — verify any citations in PubMed before use.

Medical Research Assistant

Fill in variables and run directly with AI

Wiki

A quick literature survey is the essential first step in any research workflow, giving investigators a structured overview of a topic's current state before committing to a specific direction. Rather than reading dozens of papers blindly, a well-conducted survey maps the intellectual terrain: which questions have been answered, which remain contested, and where promising white space exists for original contribution.

This tool generates a comprehensive yet concise landscape report for any medical topic. It identifies active research hotspots — the sub-questions drawing the most publications and funding — alongside the representative landmark papers that shaped current thinking. It also surfaces emerging research opportunities: specific unaddressed questions derived from documented contradictions, replication failures, or untested populations in the reviewed literature.

The output is deliberately structured to reduce cognitive load. Instead of a narrative dump, the report organizes findings under consistent headings (Hotspots, Representative Papers, Research Opportunities) so readers can navigate to the section most relevant to their immediate need. For a new graduate student, the hotspots section orients them. For an experienced investigator planning a grant, the opportunities section is actionable material.

A key design principle is anti-hallucination: every research opportunity must be traceable to a specific documented gap in the cited literature, not invented plausibility. The report explicitly flags any citation that could not be fully verified so users know where to apply extra scrutiny. This is critical in clinical research, where acting on a fabricated gap wastes months of effort.

The survey is intentionally limited to under 800 words to remain scannable — it is a map, not an encyclopedia. For a deeper dive into a selected topic, use the Comprehensive Literature Review or Research Gap Analysis tools on this platform. For converting an identified opportunity into a structured research question, the PICO Question Builder is the natural next step.

As with all AI-generated academic content, citations should be verified against PubMed or Google Scholar before they appear in any written work. The survey is a starting point, not a substitute for direct engagement with primary literature.

FAQ