Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39846014›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2025

AI-pocalypse now: Automating the systematic literature review with SPARK (Systematic processing and automated review Kit) - gathering, organising, filtering, and scaffolding.

Cameron Frederick Atkinson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Cameron Frederick AtkinsonSchool of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania, Tasmania 7005, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers today face significant challenges reshaping the landscape of academic, government, and industry research due to the exponential growth of global research outputs and the advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI). The annual increase in published works has made it difficult for traditional literature review and data analysis methods to keep pace, often rendering reviews outdated by the time of publication. In response, this methods article introduces a suite of new tools designed to automate a number of stages for systematic literature reviews. Designated SPARK (Systematic Processing and Automated Review Kit), the new computational-based approaches presented in this article automate the collection, organisation, and filtering of journal articles, alongside a data extraction scaffolding technique, for use in a systematic literature review on trauma-informed policing. As global research outputs rise, so does the need for automated methods. This paper highlights how these methods can enhance research efficiency and impact.•Hard-coded tools can be utilised to automate research.•Hard-coded tools do not carry the dangers of 'hallucinations' that GenAI infused tools may.•Hard-coded automation tools allow researchers to keep up to date with contemporary research outputs while maintaining a high level of control in the research process.

Indexed as

Automation, ScopusGoogleLDA Topic ModellingPythonSPARK: Systematic Processing and Automated Review KitSystematic literature reviewWeb of science

Identifiers

PMID39846014
PMCPMC11751522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.