ArticleACS environmental Au2025
Evaluating GPT Models for Automated Literature Screening in Wastewater-Based Epidemiology.
Article in ACS environmental Au, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A comparative study of screening performance between abstrackr and GPT models: Systematic review and contextual analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Testing the utility of GPT for title and abstract screening in environmental systematic evidence synthesis.Environmental evidence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methods to quantitatively synthesize findings across multiple studies is an emerging need in wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE), where disease tracking through wastewater analysis is performed at broad geographical locations using various techniques to facilitate public health responses. Meta-analysis provides a rigorous statistical procedure for research synthesis, yet the manual process of screening large volumes of literature remains a hurdle for its application in timely evidence-based public health responses. Here, we evaluated the performance of GPT-3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 models in automated screening of publications for meta-analysis in the WBE literature. We show that the chat completion model in GPT-4 accurately differentiates papers that contain original data from those that did not with texts of the Abstract as the input at a Precision of 0.96 and Recall of 1.00, exceeding current quality standards for manual screening (Recall = 0.95) while costing less than $0.01 per paper. GPT models performed less accurately in detecting studies reporting relevant sampling location, highlighting the value of maintaining human intervention in AI-assisted literature screening. Importantly, we show that certain formulation and model choices generated nonsensical answers to the screening tasks, while others did not, urging the attention to robustness when employing AI-assisted literature screening. This study provided novel performance evaluation data on GPT models for document screening as a step in meta-analysis, suggesting AI-assisted literature screening a useful complementary technique to speed up research synthesis in WBE.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.