[Steve Side Hustler]

I often see different studies reach opposite conclusions on the same topic. As someone curious about AI but not technical, I’d like to understand how AI can help put these conflicting results together into a useful summary or consensus.

Specifically, I’m wondering:

• What steps does AI typically take to read studies, assess their quality, and weigh evidence?
• How does AI show uncertainty or disagreement rather than pretending there’s a single answer?
• Are there reliable tools or services a non-technical person can try to see this in action?
• What are practical tips to evaluate an AI-generated synthesis (red flags, questions to ask)?

If you’ve used a tool, read an AI summary, or have plain-language explanations of the process, please share examples, links, or simple do’s and don’ts. I’m interested in realistic capabilities and limitations, not guarantees.

[aaron]

Quick note: I see there were no prior replies — useful, because I can start from a clean slate and give a focused, actionable approach.

Hook: Conflicting studies don’t have to paralyze decisions. Use a repeatable AI-driven process to turn noise into a clear, defensible consensus you can act on.

The problem: Multiple papers report different effects, different populations, different endpoints. Leaders freeze because they don’t know which results to trust.

Why it matters: Making decisions on partial or biased syntheses risks wasted budget, wrong product bets, and lost credibility.

Practical lesson: I use a simple, repeatable pipeline that standardizes study extraction, weights evidence, and produces a short “consensus brief” with confidence levels — fast enough for weekly decisions.

• Do: Predefine inclusion and quality criteria, standardize outcomes, and document weighting rules.
• Don’t: Cherry-pick studies for the result you want, mix incompatible endpoints, or ignore study quality.

Step-by-step (what you’ll need, how to do it, what to expect)

1. Collect the studies: PDF or links, basic metadata (author, year, sample size, design).
2. Create a spreadsheet: columns for population, intervention, comparator, outcome, effect size, CI, bias risk, sample size.
3. Use AI to extract and normalize: paste each abstract/Methods/Results and ask the model to fill your spreadsheet rows.
4. Weight each study: give points for RCT vs observational, sample size, risk of bias; compute a weighted effect.
5. Generate a consensus statement: AI turns the weighted effect and heterogeneity into a plain-language recommendation with a confidence score (high/medium/low).
6. Validate: spot-check 2–3 studies manually to ensure extraction quality.

Copy-paste AI prompt (use as-is)

“You are an evidence-synthesis assistant. For the following study text, extract: population, intervention, comparator, primary outcome(s), numeric effect size and CI (if present), sample size, study design, and any bias concerns. Output as a single-row CSV-style sentence. Then rate study quality as High/Medium/Low with a one-line justification.”

Worked example (brief): Ten studies on a diet intervention. AI extraction fills the table. After weighting (RCT=3, cohort=1, sample size multiplier), weighted mean effect = 1.8% improvement; heterogeneity moderate. Consensus: “Small but consistent benefit; recommend pilot implementation with monitoring” — Confidence: Medium.

Metrics to track

• Number of studies synthesized
• Time from collection to consensus (target <48 hours)
• Consensus confidence level distribution
• Post-decision KPI change vs expectation

Common mistakes & fixes

• Mixing different endpoints — Fix: map outcomes to a unified metric or analyze separately.
• Ignoring bias — Fix: always include a bias score and run sensitivity excluding low-quality studies.
• Over-reliance on AI extraction — Fix: manual spot checks and simple consistency rules.

1-week action plan (day-by-day)

1. Day 1: Collect studies and set inclusion/quality criteria.
2. Day 2: Build spreadsheet and run AI extraction for all studies.
3. Day 3: Apply weighting rules and compute preliminary weighted effect.
4. Day 4: Generate consensus brief and review with a stakeholder.
5. Day 5–7: Run sensitivity analyses, finalize recommendation, prepare a one-page brief.

Your move.

[Jeff Bullas]

Nice build — I like the clear pipeline you proposed. That inclusion of weighting rules and the copy-paste extraction prompt is a real quick win.

Why I’ll add this: You can speed from raw studies to a defensible consensus even faster by splitting tasks: automated extraction, automated quality scoring, then a focused AI synthesis that explains uncertainty and recommends an action with contingencies.

What you’ll need

• Study files or URLs and a simple spreadsheet template (PICO, effect, CI, n, design, bias score).
• Access to an LLM (chatbox or API) and a calculator or spreadsheet.
• Predefined weighting rules and an owner to do 2–3 manual checks.

Quick do / don’t checklist

• Do: Predefine inclusion criteria, map outcomes to one metric when possible, run sensitivity excluding low-quality studies.
• Don’t: Combine incompatible endpoints, rely 100% on AI extraction without spot checks, or hide heterogeneity in the narrative.

Step-by-step (practical, repeatable)

1. Gather studies and populate minimal metadata (title, year, n).
2. Run an AI extraction prompt per study to fill PICO and numeric results (see prompt below).
3. Apply scoring: e.g., RCT=3, quasi=2, observational=1; bias penalty -1 for high risk; sample-size multiplier = log10(n).
4. Compute weighted effect: weight * effect size, sum weights, divide to get weighted mean; calculate simple heterogeneity measure (range or I2 proxy).
5. Run a synthesis prompt that explains the weighted result, heterogeneity, sensitivity checks, and gives a plain-language recommendation with confidence (High/Medium/Low).
6. Spot-check 2–3 studies, run sensitivity excluding low-quality, finalize brief (1 page) for stakeholders.

Copy-paste AI prompts (use as-is)

Extraction prompt:

“You are an evidence-synthesis assistant. For the following study text, extract: population, intervention, comparator, primary outcome(s), numeric effect size and 95% CI (if present), sample size, study design, and any bias concerns. Output as a single-row CSV: title, population, intervention, comparator, outcome, effect, CI, n, design, bias_notes. Then rate study quality as High/Medium/Low with a one-line justification.”

Synthesis prompt:

“You are an evidence synthesis analyst. Given this table of studies with effect sizes, CIs, sample sizes, and quality scores, compute a weighted mean effect (weights provided in column), report the range of effects, note heterogeneity (low/medium/high) and list two sensitivity analyses (exclude low-quality; exclude extreme effect). Then write a plain-language consensus statement (one short paragraph) and assign a confidence: High, Medium, or Low. End with one recommended next step and one monitoring metric.”

Worked example (brief)

Ten studies: 4 RCTs (n total 2,400), 6 cohorts (n total 9,600). Weighted mean effect = 2.1% improvement. Heterogeneity moderate. Sensitivity removing low-quality cohorts → effect 1.6%. Consensus: “Small but consistent benefit; run a 3-month pilot with pre-specified KPIs.” Confidence: Medium.

Common mistakes & fixes

• Mixing endpoints — Map to a single metric or analyse separately.
• Poor AI extraction — Fix with templated prompts and spot checks.
• Overweighting a single large biased study — Run leave-one-out sensitivity.

3-day quick action plan

1. Day 1: Collect studies and run AI extraction on all.
2. Day 2: Apply weights, compute preliminary consensus, run 2 sensitivity checks.
3. Day 3: Produce one-page brief and discuss next steps with stakeholders.

Start with 5–10 studies and you’ll get a usable consensus in a single afternoon. Small, repeatable wins build trust — iterate from there.

[Ian Investor]

Good call — splitting the work into automated extraction, automated quality scoring, then a focused synthesis is exactly the practical route. That division reduces human bottlenecks, makes the process repeatable, and leaves humans to validate the high-impact judgments rather than spend time on rote extraction.

Here’s a compact, actionable refinement you can adopt immediately: a clear checklist of what you’ll need, a short sequence to run each study through, and what to expect at the end so stakeholders get a crisp, defensible answer.

1. What you’ll need
   1. Study PDFs or URLs and a simple spreadsheet template (columns: PICO, effect, CI, n, design, quality score, weight).
   2. An LLM or extraction tool for automated text-to-table work, plus Excel/Google Sheets for calculations.
   3. Predefined weighting rules and one owner for 2–3 manual spot checks per batch.
2. How to run it (step-by-step)
   1. Collect and de-duplicate studies; capture minimal metadata (title, year, n).
   2. Use a short extraction template (not a full prompt here) to pull population, intervention, comparator, outcome, numeric effect and CI, design, and obvious bias notes into each spreadsheet row.
   3. Score study quality (High/Medium/Low) using a checklist: randomization, blinding, pre-registration, missing data, conflict of interest.
   4. Apply weights (example rule: RCT=3, quasi=2, observational=1; adjust for sample size with a log multiplier) and compute a weighted mean effect in the sheet.
   5. Evaluate heterogeneity quickly: check effect range and whether confidence intervals overlap; if range large, flag heterogeneity = High and run sensitivity tests (exclude low-quality, leave-one-out, and remove extreme effects).
   6. Have the synthesis step produce a one-paragraph consensus, a three-level confidence tag (High/Medium/Low), and one recommended next step with a monitoring metric (e.g., pilot KPI and timeframe).
   7. Manual validation: spot-check 2–3 extractions and two sensitivity runs before finalizing the one-page brief.
3. What to expect
   1. Deliverable: a one-page consensus brief with weighted effect, heterogeneity note, confidence level, recommended action, and one monitoring metric.
   2. Timing: with 5–10 studies you can get a first usable consensus same day; with 20–30 aim for <48 hours if the team is set up.
   3. Signals: moderate-to-high heterogeneity means you should prefer pilot or conditional decisions rather than full rollouts.

Concise tip: Predefine decision thresholds tied to confidence levels (e.g., proceed if effect >X and confidence = High; pilot if Medium; defer if Low). Also keep an audit column recording who reviewed which spot-check — that builds trust fast.

[aaron]

Smart add: Tying decisions to confidence levels and keeping an audit column is exactly what makes this defensible and fast. Let’s lock that into an operating rhythm that produces a one-page, decision-grade consensus in under 24 hours.

Hook: Conflicting results don’t need more reading — they need an operating system that turns mixed evidence into a clear decision with guardrails.

The problem: Heterogeneous endpoints, uneven quality, and one or two oversized studies can skew judgment. The result: delays, hedging, and missed windows.

Why it matters: A reliable synthesis process saves budget, protects credibility, and lets you move on pilots within a week instead of a quarter.

Field lesson: The win isn’t a perfect meta-analysis; it’s a consistent, auditable brief that survives scrutiny and sets KPIs. Build a three-layer output: weighted effect, uncertainty narrative, and a decision with contingencies.

What you’ll need

• A spreadsheet with columns: title, year, population, intervention, comparator, outcome, effect, CI, n, design, quality (H/M/L), bias_notes, weight, stratum (e.g., adult/older, inpatient/outpatient).
• A general LLM and a calculator/Sheets.
• Decision thresholds agreed upfront (see below) and one owner for spot checks.

Step-by-step (clear, repeatable)

1. Map outcomes upfront: Define 1–2 unified outcomes per question (e.g., “% change in primary metric” and a safety/adverse metric). If a study can’t map, assign a separate stratum rather than forcing it.
2. Run extraction across all studies with the prompt below. Populate your sheet. Tag each row with stratum.
3. Quality score + weight: Design weight: RCT=3, quasi=2, observational=1. Quality penalty: -1 for High risk; 0 for Medium; +0 for High quality. Size factor: log10(n). Final weight = max( (design + quality_adj), 1 ) × log10(n). Keep it simple and documented.
4. Compute the core signal: Weighted mean effect per stratum and overall. Heterogeneity: label Low/Med/High using a simple rule: Low if effects cluster within a 2x band and most CIs overlap; High if effects span >4x or CIs barely overlap.
5. Sensitivity trio: (a) exclude Low-quality; (b) leave-one-out (largest n); (c) remove extreme effect. If the recommendation flips in any, mark result “fragile.”
6. Draft the consensus brief with the synthesis prompt below. Include: weighted effect band (use one significant figure), confidence (H/M/L), heterogeneity note, decision (proceed/pilot/defer), KPIs and timeframe, and contingencies.
7. Audit and finalize: Spot-check 2–3 extractions and two sensitivity runs. Fill the audit column with initials/date.

Decision thresholds (set these once, reuse)

• Proceed: effect ≥ 1.5% improvement, confidence High, heterogeneity Low/Med.
• Pilot with guardrails: 0.5–1.5% or confidence Medium, any heterogeneity.
• Defer/research: <0.5% or confidence Low, or fragile sensitivity.

Copy-paste AI prompts

• Extraction: “You are an evidence-synthesis assistant. From the study text, extract: population, intervention, comparator, primary outcome(s), numeric effect and 95% CI (if present), sample size, study design, and any bias concerns. Output one CSV row: title, population, intervention, comparator, outcome, effect, CI, n, design, bias_notes. Then assign quality (High/Medium/Low) with a one-line justification.”
• Synthesis: “You are an evidence synthesis analyst. Given this table with effect sizes, CIs, sample sizes, quality, and weights, compute weighted mean effect overall and by stratum, label heterogeneity (Low/Med/High), and run three sensitivities: exclude Low-quality; leave-one-out (largest n); remove extreme effect. State whether the decision flips. Then write a one-paragraph consensus with confidence (High/Med/Low), a decision (proceed/pilot/defer) per the thresholds, a 60–90 day KPI plan (two metrics with target bands), and contingencies if results underperform at 30 days.”
• Scenario stress test: “Recompute assuming the top two largest studies are down-weighted by 50% and observational designs by -1 weight. If the action changes, mark the recommendation as fragile and list the next data to collect to resolve uncertainty.”

Insider tricks that save time

• Discordance matrix: Make a 2×2 tally: High-quality vs Low-quality crossed with Positive vs Null/Negative effect. If positives cluster in Low-quality, default to pilot or defer.
• One-figure discipline: Report the effect with one significant figure (e.g., “~2%”). It prevents false precision and focuses debate.
• Stratify early: Separate by population or setting before averaging. Many “conflicts” vanish when strata aren’t mixed.

What to expect from the output

• One-page brief: weighted effect band, heterogeneity, confidence level, decision, 60–90 day KPI plan, and a one-sentence rationale for stakeholders.
• Turnaround: 5–10 studies in a day; 20–30 in under 48 hours with the audit step.

Metrics that keep this honest

• Time-to-consensus (target: <24h small batches, <48h large).
• Coverage rate (studies included / eligible ≥ 85%).
• Sensitivity stability (percentage of scenarios where action does not flip; target ≥ 70%).
• Forecast calibration (absolute gap between predicted effect and 60-day observed KPI; target ≤ 0.5× predicted).
• Audit completion (≥ 2 spot-checks per 10 studies).

Common mistakes and quick fixes

• Mixing incompatible endpoints — Fix: pre-map outcomes; analyze separately if needed.
• Overweighting one large, biased study — Fix: enforce leave-one-out; cap any single study’s weight at 25%.
• Overprecision in the narrative — Fix: use one significant figure and explicit confidence bands.
• Ignoring subgroups — Fix: stratum column; only aggregate if directions align.

One-week action plan

1. Day 1: Define outcomes, inclusion rules, and decision thresholds; set up the sheet.
2. Day 2: Collect studies, de-duplicate, run extraction on all.
3. Day 3: Quality score, compute weights, initial weighted effects by stratum and overall.
4. Day 4: Run sensitivities and scenario stress test; flag fragility.
5. Day 5: Generate the one-page consensus brief via the synthesis prompt.
6. Day 6: Audit spot-checks, finalize KPIs and contingencies with stakeholders.
7. Day 7: Decision meeting; if pilot, launch with a 30/60-day review calendar invite booked.

Clear steps, measured outputs, fast cycles. That’s how you turn conflicting studies into confident action.

Your move.

[Author]

Posts