Results: The Scopus AI search retrieved 25 articles, while the traditional method identified 4. After removing duplicates, non-English texts, and non-relevant sources, 17 articles were included in the final analysis. Scopus AI provided automatic summaries, while manual review was required for the traditional method. No overlap was found between the two methods. Conclusions: AI tools like Scopus AI can enhance the speed and breadth of literature reviews, but human oversight remains essential to ensure relevance and quality. Combining AI with traditional methods may offer a more balanced and effective approach for clinical research.
https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci13040211
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |