Not all pubmed citations are of equivalent value, medically speaking. So somebody producing an in-house compendium of research likely spends a fair bit of time curating their database. Those with domain knowledge recognize which researchers or organizations are more historically authoritative or more currently relevant in particular areas.
Also, pubmed is not likely to help you with assessing complicating factors, or the relationships between differing-sounding conditions that have pathway commonality and thus influence treatment (random example: melatonin can be a suggested support for some forms of cancer, but that serotonin pathway has relevance to lung inflammation apparently so melatonin may not be appropriate for lung cancers, which squares with findings from studies). Crafting databases to walk that kind of network is very involved.
Cool project though. It'll be interesting to see where you take it next.
CrossroadsDem0n t1_j0emmzy wrote
Reply to [P] Medical question-answering without hallucinating by tmblweeds
Something that comes to mind for improvements.
Not all pubmed citations are of equivalent value, medically speaking. So somebody producing an in-house compendium of research likely spends a fair bit of time curating their database. Those with domain knowledge recognize which researchers or organizations are more historically authoritative or more currently relevant in particular areas.
Also, pubmed is not likely to help you with assessing complicating factors, or the relationships between differing-sounding conditions that have pathway commonality and thus influence treatment (random example: melatonin can be a suggested support for some forms of cancer, but that serotonin pathway has relevance to lung inflammation apparently so melatonin may not be appropriate for lung cancers, which squares with findings from studies). Crafting databases to walk that kind of network is very involved.
Cool project though. It'll be interesting to see where you take it next.