As if the concern about fighting fake news wasn't enough, there is more and more information (From scientists) about better ways to deal with it coronavirus. The phenomenon, dubbed an “infodemic” by the World Health Organization, has made it very difficult for researchers (and not only) to fully digest the rapidly evolving discoveries, making some current research obsolete even before it has been evaluated by other scientists.
Research in recent months has been very demanding and researchers consider it their duty to publish results that may be useful to clinicians. But there are always conflicts due to the growing scientific literature. 
In a opinion article In Patterns magazine, Ganesh Mani of Carnegie Mellon University, an investor, technology entrepreneur and associate member at the Software Research Institute, and Tom Hope, a postdoctoral researcher at the Allen Institute for AI, issued a distance call.
"Given the ever-increasing volume of research, it will be difficult for people to keep up," the article said.
They cite in particular the information deluge of research on coronaviruses. By mid-August, more than 8.000 drafts of scientific papers related to Covid 19 had been published in online medical, biological and chemistry archives. There is not a lot of information about depression caused by quarantine. In the field of virology, the average time that usestai for her review from peers and the publication of new articles decreased on average from 117 days at the beginning to 60 days.
Έτσι φαίνεται όλο και πιο ελκυστικό και ίσως απαραίτητο να συνδυαστεί η ανθρώπινη τεχνογνωσία με το AI για να αρχίσουν να βοηθούν τα καταγεγραμμένα αποτελέσματα με την έρευνα που κάνει άλματα. Ο υπερβολικός αριθμός πληροφοριών όχι μόνο οδηγεί στην αδύνατη πέψη όλων, αλλά και στη διάκριση μεταξύ χρήσιμων και ύποπτων πληροφοριών και αποτελεσμάτων. Η τεχνητή intelligence could help evaluate the research and classify it appropriately.
"We will have the same discussion with vaccines," said Mani. "We will have a lot of discussions."
Of course, technology alone cannot find a complete solution. Mani and Hope suggest new policies, such as delineating negative results from positive findings, which may be important to clinicians as they discourage scientists from accessing limited or redundant research. Other ideas presented in the article include identifying top quality reviews and linking research to relevant literature, websites recalls or legal decisions.
Artificial intelligence could help, but there is still a problem in understanding human language. So the authors state that it may be necessary for researchers to write two editions of research papers, one for humans and one for AI.
"Using such infrastructure will help society in the next big surprise or challenge, which is likely to need as much, if not more, knowledge."
