Making the most of Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models to support collection development in health sciences libraries
Journal of the Medical Library Association, ISSN: 1558-9439, Vol: 113, Issue: 1, Page: 92-93
2025
- 48Usage
- 9Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage48
- Downloads32
- Abstract Views16
- Captures9
- Readers9
Article Description
This project investigated the potential of generative AI models in aiding health sciences librarians with collection development. Researchers at Chapman University’s Harry and Diane Rinker Health Science campus evaluated four generative AI models—ChatGPT 4.0, Google Gemini, Perplexity, and Microsoft Copilot—over six months starting in March 2024. Two prompts were used: one to generate recent eBook titles in specific health sciences fields and another to identify subject gaps in the existing collection. The first prompt revealed inconsistencies across models, with Copilot and Perplexity providing sources but also inaccuracies. The second prompt yielded more useful results, with all models offering helpful analysis and accurate Library of Congress call numbers. The findings suggest that Large Language Models (LLMs) are not yet reliable as primary tools for collection development due to inaccuracies and hallucinations. However, they can serve as supplementary tools for analyzing subject coverage and identifying gaps in health sciences collections.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85216282042&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2025.2079; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39975505; http://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/2079; https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/librarian_articles/52; https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=librarian_articles; https://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2025.2079; https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/2079
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know