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.

In the digital age, seeking health advice on the Internet has become a common practice. At the same time, determining the trustworthiness of online medical content is increasingly challenging. Fact-checking has emerged as an approach to assess the veracity of factual claims using evidence from credible knowledge sources. To help advance automated Natural Language Processing (NLP) solutions for this task, in this paper we introduce a novel dataset HealthFC. It consists of 750 health-related claims in German and English, labeled for veracity by medical experts and backed with evidence from systematic reviews and clinical trials. We provide an analysis of the dataset, highlighting its characteristics and challenges. The dataset can be used for NLP tasks related to automated fact-checking, such as evidence retrieval, claim verification, or explanation generation. For testing purposes, we provide baseline systems based on different approaches, examine their performance, and discuss the findings. We show that the dataset is a challenging test bed with a high potential for future use.

The increasing rate at which scientific knowledge is discovered and health claims shared online has highlighted the importance of developing efficient fact-checking systems for scientific claims.The usual setting for this task in the literature assumes that the documents containing the evidence for claims are already provided and annotated or contained in a limited corpus.This renders the systems unrealistic for real-world settings where knowledge sources with potentially millions of documents need to be queried to find relevant evidence.In this paper, we perform an array of experiments to test the performance of open-domain claim verification systems.We test the final verdict prediction of systems on four datasets of biomedical and health claims in different settings.While keeping the pipeline's evidence selection and verdict prediction parts constant, document retrieval is performed over three common knowledge sources (PubMed, Wikipedia, Google) and using two different information retrieval techniques.We show that PubMed works better with specialized biomedical claims, while Wikipedia is more suited for everyday health concerns.Likewise, BM25 excels in retrieval precision, while semantic search in recall of relevant evidence.We discuss the results, outline frequent retrieval patterns and challenges, and provide promising future directions.

Knowledge-enhanced language models (KELMs) have emerged as promising tools to bridge the gap between large-scale language models and domain-specific knowledge. KELMs can achieve higher factual accuracy and mitigate hallucinations by leveraging knowledge graphs (KGs). They are frequently combined with adapter modules to reduce the computational load and risk of catastrophic forgetting. In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) on adapter-based approaches to KELMs. We provide a structured overview of existing methodologies in the field through quantitative and qualitative analysis and explore the strengths and potential shortcomings of individual approaches. We show that general knowledge and domain-specific approaches have been frequently explored along with various adapter architectures and downstream tasks. We particularly focused on the popular biomedical domain, where we provided an insightful performance comparison of existing KELMs. We outline the main trends and propose promising future directions.

Large Language Models work quite well with general-purpose data and many tasks in Natural Language Processing. However, they show several limitations when used for a task such as domain-specific abstractive text summarization. This paper identifies three of those limitations as research problems in the context of abstractive text summarization: 1) Quadratic complexity of transformer-based models with respect to the input text length; 2) Model Hallucination, which is a model's ability to generate factually incorrect text; and 3) Domain Shift, which happens when the distribution of the model's training and test corpus is not the same. Along with a discussion of the open research questions, this paper also provides an assessment of existing state-of-the-art techniques relevant to domain-specific text summarization to address the research gaps.