Meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the program for the 2026 annual conference of the Medical Library Association (MLA) concentrated, yes, on AI but also on systematic reviews, data management, and leadership. Sessions and lightning talks covered storytelling, evaluation, gamification, outreach, collection development, tools, and career development. Presentations about literacy encompassed health literacy, information literacy, and AI literacy, The balance of technology and soft skills represented the modern library workplace, not only for medical librarians but also for those in other types of libraries.
In the area of systematic reviews, several presenters bemoaned the fact that researchers rarely gave any credit to the assistance they received from the library. Only occasionally were librarians mentioned by name. AI is creeping into the creation of systematic reviews, as companies that support the research process begin adding AI capabilities and as researchers find the time required to create a meaningful review is shortened considerably when using AI. It may come as a shock, but several studies found that ChatGPT was often better at critical analysis than humans. Summaries written by Ai, however, need human oversight as the AI can get it wrong. Plus, reports of AI producing information that was not useful were abundant. Data ambiguity can be beyond the capabilities of AI to interpret correctly,
Systematic reviews, reported several librarians, are no longer restricted to the medical literature. Other disciplines within academia, such as business, are beginning to be interested in adopting an evidence-based approach and are exploring PRISMA-guided projects. However, the way they approach the review process may differ from the medical researcher approach. Certainly, a narrative review is entrenched in many disciplines, but the notion of meta-analysis and evidence synthesis may be new to them. An opportunity for medical librarians to expand their services.
Artificial Intelligence in Libraries
Any discussion among librarians today inevitably comes around to, if it doesn’t start with, the promise and perils of AI. At the MLA conference, one session on "Ai for the Uninterested" was misnamed. Attendees were very interested. The responsible use of AI and the environmental impact were top of mind. The power of AI is enormous but it can be overwhelming. We need to pay attention to when prompts are ignored. AI should be the tool, not us being AI’s tool. AI can be effectively used to streamline library workflows and have a role to play in collection development.
One innovative idea for medical education was using AI tools to create virtual patients, then have students practice having conversations with them. This maximizes the learning experience without damaging any actual human beings. Real patients don’t like being guinea pigs; virtual patients don’t care.
The Prompt-a-thon contest, organized by MLA’s AI Imperative Task Force, grouped the audience into teams to consider two scenarios, one about analyzing a journal title list and the other about creating a scoping review on interventions that impact quality of life for persons with chronic diseases. I’m delighted that Team Goblin, named after Goblin tools (I was on that team) won top spot for the journal list and came in second for the scoping review. Prizes were stuffed infectious disease microbes. I chose Tuberculosis. There’s something uniquely MLA about hearing someone shout, "I’ve got Anthrax left; anyone want Anthrax?"
Away from AI were stories about the human aspects of librarianship. A patient who was so impressed by library services that he gave money to the hospital, a researcher delighted with library assistance, the constant need to prove the value of the library, a legislative body swayed to vote in favor of libraries—all these are independent of AI and deeply moving.
The theme of the conference was Cultured Collaborations, meant as a comment on the collaborative nature of information sharing that library conferences encourage and as a nod to Wisconsin’s reputation as a cheese producing state. It also gave rise to a number of cheesy talk titles ("Cheddar Together", "A Gouda Fit: Three Librarians, thee Institutions, and a Willingness to Go Beyond the Rind", "Grate Expectations") and some bad jokes: "What do you call cheese that doesn’t belong to you? Nacho cheese!" The gouda ones all hinge on the English pronunciation rather than the correct Dutch one, so if you use the Dutch pronunciation, the jokes make no sense.
Off to the Exhibits
The exhibit space was compact but very vibrant. As expected, the mainstays of MLA had a strong presence—Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, McGraw Hill, American Psychological Association, Annals of Internal Medicine (thanks for the morning coffee!), BMJ Group, Clarivate, Covidence, JAMA Network, and Wiley.
Gideon Informatics, with its daily-updated database on infectious diseases, is particularly relevant with the resurgence of Ebola and measles. Its color-coded epidemiology maps make the global picture of disease much easier to comprehend.
I’m always glad to see Cabells at MLA with its Journalytics Academic and Journalytics Medicine guiding librarians through the morass of predatory publishing. At the same time, I wish their products weren’t necessary. This, I fear, is a vain hope, as predatory journals keep popping up not dying out.
The latest (5th edition) Atlas of Anatomy from Thieme is particularly exciting for the high intensity of its anatomical images, embracing multiple skin tones, providing realistic and 3D anatomy, and reflecting modern medical practice. Its MedOneVet took the original German-language veterinary books, digitized them, and used machine translation to turn the German into English.
I would say that sysrev from insilica is a new entry into the systematic review field, but it’s actually been around for 10 years. Still, many of the medical librarians were unaware of it. Featuring a flat fee for academic institutions, sysrev promises AI without the black boxes, letting searchers choose their own model and importing information from open access source
Expanding beyond its traditional STEM videos, JoVE is venturing into the business area, with video textbooks on accounting, finance, macroeconomics, marketing, and microeconomics. More generally, on offer are 10 modules about information literacy.
Interesting to me were exhibitors a bit outside the health sciences area, particularly those in the public policy area. Although the results of health research and systematic reviews can be (and have been) used in public policy documents, both Coherent Digital and Overton have a much more broad base than medicine and health sciences. Coherent’s Applied Science Commons includes modules on psychology, nursing and allied health, public health and social care, and applied environmental science that are of particular interest to the MLA community. Overton Index consolidates millions of policy documents and grey literature to add a policy dimension to evidence synthesis and to help libraries and their parent institutions measure research impact.
Attitudes toward AI among MLA conference attendees ran the gamut from early adopters, enthusiasts, undecided, skeptics, and outright haters. On the exhibit floor, the people representing the companies were more nuanced in their approach. They were excited about what AI could do to improve their products or lead to new product development but they were cautious about getting too far ahead of their customers.
As with everything AI, the impact of the technology on medical libraries and on the field of librarianship in general is changing rapidly. Expect to see these changes explored in next year’s MLA conference, to be held in Denver, Colorado.