Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40036547›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025

Enhancing systematic literature reviews with generative artificial intelligence: development, applications, and performance evaluation.

Ying Li, Surabhi Datta, Majid Rastegar-Mojarad, Kyeryoung Lee, Hunki Paek, Julie Glasgow, Chris Liston, Long He, Xiaoyan Wang, Yingxin Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Ying LiRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tarrytown, NY 10591, United States.
Surabhi DattaIMO Health, Inc., Rosemont, IL 60018, United States.
Majid Rastegar-MojaradIMO Health, Inc., Rosemont, IL 60018, United States.
Kyeryoung LeeIMO Health, Inc., Rosemont, IL 60018, United States.
Hunki PaekIMO Health, Inc., Rosemont, IL 60018, United States.ORCID 0009-0000-9916-5654
Julie GlasgowIMO Health, Inc., Rosemont, IL 60018, United States.
Chris ListonIMO Health, Inc., Rosemont, IL 60018, United States.
Long HeIMO Health, Inc., Rosemont, IL 60018, United States.
Xiaoyan WangIMO Health, Inc., Rosemont, IL 60018, United States.
Yingxin XuRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tarrytown, NY 10591, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe developed and validated a large language model (LLM)-assisted system for conducting systematic literature reviews in health technology assessment (HTA) submissions. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe developed a five-module system using abstracts acquired from PubMed: (1) literature search query setup; (2) study protocol setup using population, intervention/comparison, outcome, and study type (PICOs) criteria; (3) LLM-assisted abstract screening; (4) LLM-assisted data extraction; and (5) data summarization. The system incorporates a human-in-the-loop design, allowing real-time PICOs criteria adjustment. This is achieved by collecting information on disagreements between the LLM and human reviewers regarding inclusion/exclusion decisions and their rationales, enabling informed PICOs refinement. We generated four evaluation sets including relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and advanced melanoma to evaluate the LLM's performance in three key areas: (1) recommending inclusion/exclusion decisions during abstract screening, (2) providing valid rationales for abstract exclusion, and (3) extracting relevant information from included abstracts.

resultsThe system demonstrated relatively high performance across all evaluation sets. For abstract screening, it achieved an average sensitivity of 90%, F1 score of 82, accuracy of 89%, and Cohen's κ of 0.71, indicating substantial agreement between human reviewers and LLM-based results. In identifying specific exclusion rationales, the system attained accuracies of 97% and 84%, and F1 scores of 98 and 89 for RRMM and advanced melanoma, respectively. For data extraction, the system achieved an F1 score of 93. DISCUSSION: Results showed high sensitivity, Cohen's κ, and PABAK for abstract screening, and high F1 scores for data extraction. This human-in-the-loop AI-assisted SLR system demonstrates the potential of GPT-4's in context learning capabilities by eliminating the need for manually annotated training data. In addition, this LLM-based system offers subject matter experts greater control through prompt adjustment and real-time feedback, enabling iterative refinement of PICOs criteria based on performance metrics.

conclusionThe system demonstrates potential to streamline systematic literature reviews, potentially reducing time, cost, and human errors while enhancing evidence generation for HTA submissions.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceInformation Storage and RetrievalSystematic Reviews as TopicTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansGPT-4human-in-the loop AIinformation extractionlarge language modelsystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID40036547
PMCPMC12005633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.