ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Enhancing systematic literature reviews with generative artificial intelligence: development, applications, and performance evaluation.
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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Translation readiness of model-based synthetic tabular data in healthcare: a systematic review and governance audit.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Pooled it
- Reproducible study identification and selection in systematic reviews: barriers and paths forward.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Resources for the Screening of Titles and Abstracts in Systematic Reviews: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Proof of Concept of Large Language Models for Opioid Treatment Policy Surveillance: 97% Agreement With Subject Matter Experts.Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs · 2026Article
- Can artificial intelligence accurately assess systematic review quality? Benchmarking large language models for AMSTAR 2 appraisal in dental evidence synthesis.Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Article
- How Often Do Large Language Models Agree with Each Other-And with the Truth? A Consensus- and Complexity-Stratified Analysis of Data Extraction for Neuroimaging AI.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A Machine Learning and Large Language Model Tool for Systematic Literature Reviews of Health Economic Evidence: A Validation Study.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- From review to synthesis: A step-by-step methodological guide to systematic reviews and multilevel meta-analyses.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Automated full-text screening and accelerated reviews using large language models with context-aware agents: an exploratory analysis in biomarker research.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- From reviews to real-time: dynamic evidence in dentistry.Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Article
- Evaluating Elicit's systematic reviews workflow in an umbrella review on air pollution and acute lower respiratory infections: a methodological study for quality appraisal.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Novel Abstract Screening Algorithm Using Delphi-Inspired Large Language Model Consensus for Systematic Reviews in Psychiatry: Nouvel algorithme de sélection des résumés utilisant un consensus issu d'un grand modèle de langage inspiré de la méthode Delphi pour les revues systématiques en psychiatrie.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Tools for Automating Evidence Synthesis: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis: a narrative review.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Cybersecurity in Radio Frequency Technologies: A Scientometric and Systematic Review with Implications for IoT and Wireless Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Human-AI collaboration enhances the performance of large language models in risk of bias assessment.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Automation Bias, Deskilling, and Cognitive Implications - A Systematic Review.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2026Review
- Machine learning-enabled systematic review on coded healthcare data in heart failure research.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Transparent Reporting of AI in Systematic Literature Reviews: Development of the PRISMA-trAIce Checklist.JMIR AI · 2025Article
- Harnessing Large-Language Models for Efficient Data Extraction in Systematic Reviews: The Role of Prompt Engineering.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.