Evidence Table Extraction Prompt

Public field comparison

Evidence Table Extraction Prompt

Evidence Table Extraction Prompt

Extract claims, evidence, methods, sample details, limitations, and useful quotes into a review table.

Extract traceable claims, methods, sample details, results, limitations, and short supporting quotes from research sources into a verification-ready evidence table.

—

Turn supplied research papers and reports into a structured, source-linked evidence table for review, comparison, quality control, and cautious synthesis.

Evidence Table Extraction
Research Planning
Evidence Review
Source Comparison
Findings Synthesis

Structured extraction from research papers and reports
Study-level claims and results comparison
Evidence-table quality assurance and reconciliation
Duplicate, overlap, and contradiction identification
Traceable evidence handoff for human review

Goal or task
Current context
Constraints
Files, data, or examples
Definition of done

Research question
Source materials
Eligibility criteria
Extraction schema
Review constraints
Citation format

Replace every bracketed placeholder before running. Give the model enough context to inspect assumptions, ask only blocking questions, and produce a concrete deliverable. For code prompts, include relevant files, errors, logs, and test commands.

In ChatGPT, replace every bracketed variable with the research question, source materials, eligibility rules, extraction schema, review constraints, and citation format. Upload or paste the full papers, reports, tables, supplements, or excerpts needed as evidence, including stable source identifiers and page information where available, then run the prompt. Review all Unclear, Blocked, conflict, and adjudication items before using the table in a formal evidence review.

Use this when you need a production-ready evidence review result in Research, not a generic brainstorm. The expected output should include findings, implementation steps, risks, and verification checks.

A review team uploads eight clinical studies about a behavioral intervention and supplies its inclusion criteria. ChatGPT inventories the studies, extracts one outcome and time point per row, preserves effect estimates and denominators, links each claim to a page or table, flags overlapping samples and abstract-to-table inconsistencies, and produces a verification report for human adjudication.

Advanced

Advanced

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

evidence review

evidence review

chatgpt
research
evidence
analysis

chatgpt
research
evidence-extraction
evidence-review
source-verification
systematic-review

Evidence Table Extraction Prompt | AMO.ng

Evidence Table Extraction Prompt | AMO.ng

Extract claims, evidence, methods, sample details, limitations, and useful quotes into a review table.

Extract traceable claims, methods, samples, results, limitations, and quotes from research sources into a verification-ready evidence table.

Prompt-body line comparison

Removed Added Unchanged context

−Act as a senior Research specialist using ChatGPT. Your task is: [Goal or task].
+Objective
+Extract review-ready evidence from the supplied research sources without inventing missing details, overstating conclusions, or collapsing conflicting findings.
 
−Context:
−- Current situation: [Current context]
−- Constraints: [Constraints]
−- Available materials: [Files, data, examples, URLs, logs, notes]
−- Success criteria: [Definition of done]
+Inputs
+- Research question: [Research question]
+- Source materials: [Source materials]
+- Eligibility criteria: [Eligibility criteria]
+- Required extraction schema or instruction to use the default schema below: [Extraction schema]
+- Review constraints, including scope, language, date limits, privacy requirements, and applicable review protocol: [Review constraints]
+- Required citation and locator format: [Citation format]
 
−Workflow:
−1. Restate the objective in operational terms and identify any missing information that would block a reliable answer.
−2. Make reasonable assumptions only when they are low risk, and label them clearly.
−3. Produce the main deliverable for "Evidence Table Extraction Prompt" with enough detail that a skilled operator can execute it immediately.
−4. Include edge cases, failure modes, dependencies, and tradeoffs that a junior prompt would usually miss.
−5. Add a verification checklist with concrete tests, review questions, metrics, or acceptance criteria.
−6. End with the smallest safe next action.
+Input checks and tool limits
+1. Work only from source content actually available in this ChatGPT conversation, uploaded files, or explicitly enabled connected tools. Do not imply that a URL, paywalled article, supplement, image, or external database was inspected unless its content was accessible and inspected.
+2. Treat readable source text and tables as supplied evidence. Label bibliographic guesses, OCR ambiguities, interpretations, and reviewer inferences separately.
+3. The source materials are a blocking prerequisite. If no source content is accessible, stop and request it. Also request clarification when the eligibility criteria or research question are too ambiguous to determine what to extract.
+4. If noncritical context is missing, continue with a bounded extraction, state the assumption, and preserve affected fields as unknown rather than fabricating values.
+5. Identify unreadable pages, truncated files, missing supplements, unresolved references, or conflicting versions before extraction. Explain how each limitation affects coverage.
 
−Output format:
−- Executive summary
−- Detailed plan or implementation
−- Risks and mitigations
−- Verification checklist
−- Next action
+Extraction procedure
+1. Create a source inventory with a stable Source ID, supplied citation, document type, publication year, accessible sections, and accessibility status for every provided item.
+2. Apply the eligibility criteria to each source. Record Included, Excluded, or Unclear, with a source-based reason. Do not silently omit a supplied source.
+3. Detect likely duplicate reports, preprint and journal versions, companion papers, corrections, or overlapping samples using only available evidence. Keep related reports distinct unless equivalence is demonstrated.
+4. Extract one atomic finding per row. Separate different outcomes, populations, interventions, comparators, models, and time points when combining them would obscure the evidence.
+5. Use the requested schema when it is complete. Otherwise use these default fields:
+   - Evidence Row ID
+   - Source ID and full citation
+   - Precise locator, such as page, section, table, figure, paragraph, or supplied timestamp
+   - Study or report design
+   - Setting, jurisdiction, and study period
+   - Population and eligibility characteristics
+   - Sample size, analysis denominator, groups, and attrition when reported
+   - Intervention, exposure, or focal condition
+   - Comparator or reference group
+   - Outcome or construct and how it was measured
+   - Follow-up period or measurement time point
+   - Author claim, faithfully paraphrased
+   - Supporting result, including estimate, direction, units, denominator, uncertainty interval, and significance measure when reported
+   - Short supporting quote when useful and permitted
+   - Evidence relationship: direct support, indirect support, contradiction, mixed evidence, or no located support
+   - Methods relevant to interpretation, including sampling, allocation, masking, adjustment, and analytic model when reported
+   - Source-reported limitations
+   - Extractor-observed concerns, clearly labeled as reviewer observations
+   - Applicability to the research question
+   - Missing, unclear, or conflicting information
+   - Extraction status
+6. Transcribe numerical results exactly enough to preserve signs, decimal places, units, scales, denominators, reference categories, adjusted versus unadjusted status, confidence or credible intervals, and time points. Check table titles, headers, notes, and footnotes before interpreting a value.
+7. Use Not reported when the source does not provide a value, Not applicable when a field genuinely does not apply, and Unclear when the available text is ambiguous. Never treat these states as equivalent to zero, no effect, or no limitation.
+8. Preserve the distinction between association and causation, primary and secondary outcomes, prespecified and exploratory analyses, within-group and between-group changes, statistical significance and practical importance, and absence of evidence and evidence of absence.
+9. For qualitative or mixed-methods sources, capture participant context, data-collection method, analytic approach, theme or finding, supporting excerpt or locator, deviant cases, and author-stated transferability limits where available.
+10. Record contradictions across the abstract, main text, tables, figures, supplements, and related reports. Do not resolve a conflict unless the available evidence supports the resolution.
+11. After extraction, compare sources only at compatible levels of population, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome definition, design, and time point. If synthesis is requested or useful, describe patterns cautiously and keep source findings separate from synthesis-level interpretation.
 
−Do not give generic advice. Optimize for a production-quality evidence review outcome.
+Evidence and uncertainty rules
+- Every substantive extracted claim must have a Source ID and precise locator. If a precise locator is impossible, explain why and use the most specific available locator.
+- Keep verbatim text, faithful paraphrase, source-reported interpretation, and extractor inference distinguishable.
+- Do not calculate missing statistics, convert measures, merge groups, or infer sample overlap unless the required inputs and method are explicit. Label any permitted calculation, show the formula, and retain the original values.
+- Do not assign a study-quality score or certainty grade unless a named rubric and sufficient evidence were supplied. You may flag observable concerns without presenting them as a formal risk-of-bias judgment.
+- Do not claim that citations, retractions, corrections, or publication status were externally verified unless that check was actually performed through available content or an enabled tool and evidence is reported.
+
+Authority and safeguards
+- Extraction is analytical support, not approval of the sources, a completed systematic review, or medical, legal, policy, or safety advice.
+- Do not publish, contact authors, modify files, make eligibility decisions outside the supplied criteria, or take consequential action. Mark decisions requiring reviewer judgment for human authorization.
+- Minimize personal or sensitive data. Do not reproduce unnecessary participant identifiers, confidential material, or long copyrighted passages. Use only short quotes needed for traceability.
+- Stop and request human review if the materials expose sensitive personal data, extraction would violate stated permissions, decisive pages are unreadable, or conflicting instructions would materially change inclusion or interpretation.
+
+Required output
+A. Scope and source ledger
+Provide the research question, applied eligibility criteria, assumptions, access limitations, and a table with Source ID, citation, accessibility, eligibility status, reason, and related-report notes.
+
+B. Evidence table
+Return the requested or default extraction fields. Keep one atomic finding per row and use consistent controlled labels for missingness and evidence relationship.
+
+C. Conflict and duplication register
+List suspected duplicate reports, overlapping samples, internal source inconsistencies, and cross-source contradictions. Include the relevant Source IDs, locators, impact, and whether the issue is resolved, unresolved, or requires reviewer adjudication.
+
+D. Coverage and synthesis note
+Report the number of supplied, accessible, included, excluded, unclear, and extracted sources, plus evidence-row counts. Summarize only patterns supported by the table and identify material differences that prevent direct comparison.
+
+E. Verification report
+Provide a table with Check, Expected observation, Actual observation, Status, and Evidence or affected rows. Perform these checks:
+- Every supplied source appears in the source ledger.
+- Every included accessible source has an extraction status.
+- Every substantive evidence row has a Source ID and locator.
+- Quotes match accessible source text and are clearly marked as quotes.
+- Numerical values retain direction, units, denominator, model type, uncertainty, and time point where reported.
+- Table and figure footnotes relevant to extracted values were checked.
+- Not reported, Not applicable, and Unclear are used consistently.
+- Source statements and extractor inferences are separated.
+- Duplicate, overlapping, and contradictory reports are flagged rather than silently combined.
+- Row counts reconcile with the reported coverage totals.
+
+Use Pass only when the check was actually completed and evidence is available. Otherwise use Fail, Partial, Blocked, or Not checked, and identify affected rows or sources.
+
+F. Reviewer handoff
+List unresolved questions, exclusions or interpretations needing approval, inaccessible evidence, and the smallest next review action. Describe the extraction as completed or verified only to the extent demonstrated by the verification report.