====== 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.