In this work we present TrialsSummarizer, a system that aims to automatically summarize evidence presented in the set of randomized controlled trials most relevant to a given query. Building on prior work, the system retrieves trial publications matching a query specifying a combination of condition, intervention(s), and outcome(s), and ranks these according to sample size and estimated study quality. The top-k such studies are passed through a neural multi-document summarization system, yielding a synopsis of these trials. We consider two architectures: A standard sequence-to-sequence model based on BART, and a multi-headed architecture intended to provide greater transparency and controllability to end-users. Both models produce fluent and relevant summaries of evidence retrieved for queries, but their tendency to introduce unsupported statements render them inappropriate for use in this domain at present. The proposed architecture may help users verify outputs allowing users to trace generated tokens back to inputs. The demonstration video can be found at https://vimeo.com/735605060The prototype, source code, and model weights are available at: https://sanjanaramprasad.github.io/trials-summarizer/

While the NLP community has produced numerous summarization benchmarks, none provide the rich annotations required to simultaneously address many important problems related to control and reliability. We introduce a Wikipedia-derived benchmark, complemented by a rich set of crowd-sourced annotations, that supports 8 interrelated tasks: (i) extractive summarization; (ii) abstractive summarization; (iii) topic-based summarization; (iv) compressing selected sentences into a one-line summary; (v) surfacing evidence for a summary sentence; (vi) predicting the factual accuracy of a summary sentence; (vii) identifying unsubstantiated spans in a summary sentence; (viii) correcting factual errors in summaries. We compare various methods on this benchmark and discover that on multiple tasks, moderately-sized fine-tuned models consistently outperform much larger few-shot prompted language models. For factuality-related tasks, we also evaluate existing heuristics to create training data and find that training on them results in worse performance than training on 20× less human-labeled data. Our articles draw from 6 domains, facilitating cross-domain analysis. On some tasks, the amount of training data matters more than the domain where it comes from, while for other tasks training specifically on data from the target domain, even if limited, is more beneficial.