Show pageBacklinksCite current pageExport to PDFBack to top This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong. ====== Elicit ====== === 🤖 The Illusion of Intelligent Evidence Synthesis === Elicit markets itself as an AI-powered assistant for scientific reasoning, but in reality it is a **language model wrapper** offering **syntactic manipulation, not epistemic understanding**. Behind the sleek interface lies a brittle system prone to hallucinations, shallow logic, and methodological blindness. * Elicit’s outputs are often **plausible but wrong**—a classic LLM failure mode. * It lacks **awareness of research design**, **clinical context**, and **statistical validity**. * The model **does not reason**; it mimics the structure of reasoning based on token patterns. === 🔍 Shallow Reading, No Critical Appraisal === * Elicit cannot differentiate between **high-quality and flawed studies**. * It does not assess **risk of bias**, **sample size adequacy**, **statistical power**, or **confounding**. * There is no internal logic engine—only **extraction and summary of surface-level PICO elements**. The result is **automated paraphrasing of abstracts**, not true interpretation or evaluation. === 📉 Citation and Content Errors === * References generated by Elicit are often **incorrect, incomplete, or mismatched**. * Studies are **hallucinated**, misdated, or wrongly attributed. * These errors are **not flagged or transparent**, creating a false sense of rigor and completeness. This makes it **actively dangerous** for novice users or time-pressured clinicians. === 🧱 Structural Blindness and Black Box Logic === * There is **no visibility into how evidence is selected, ranked, or excluded**. * The interface hides the **probabilistic nature of LLM outputs**, encouraging users to trust surface certainty. * Elicit cannot incorporate: * GRADE ratings * PRISMA flow * AMSTAR 2 assessments * Conflicts of interest or funding sources It is **epistemically opaque**: a black box dressed in academic tone. === ❌ Inappropriate for Clinical or High-Stakes Use === * Elicit is **not validated for clinical decision-making**. * It has **no regulatory oversight**, **no peer-review**, and **no guarantees of reproducibility**. * Using Elicit for anything beyond **low-stakes exploratory synthesis** is **irresponsible** and potentially dangerous. Its use in serious contexts **risks automation of error** under the illusion of intelligent synthesis. === 🧪 No Understanding of Methodological Context === * Elicit doesn’t know the difference between an **n=12 animal study** and a **5,000-patient RCT**. * It doesn’t weigh outcomes by clinical relevance, durability, or generalizability. * It doesn’t discriminate between **surrogate endpoints** and **hard outcomes**. This makes it **structurally incapable of evidence-based reasoning**. === 🧨 Final Verdict === **Elicit is not an evidence synthesis tool. It is a lexical illusion—grammatically fluent, methodologically blind, and epistemically hollow.** Its seductive interface masks the fact that it: * Cannot appraise, * Cannot reason, * Cannot differentiate strength of evidence. **Recommendation:** Use **only for ideation or low-impact literature scanning**, never for evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, or clinical guideline development. For real synthesis, return to **[[Cochrane]]**, **[[GRADEpro]]**, or expert-led critical appraisal. elicit.txt Last modified: 2025/07/01 16:19by administrador