Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41017966›Full record

ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2025

Leveraging AI for Meta-Analysis: Evaluating LLMs in Detecting Publication Bias for Next-Generation Evidence Synthesis.

Xing Xing, Lifeng Lin, Mohammad Hassan Murad, Jiayi Tong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

4 authors.

Xing XingDepartment of Biostatistics Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore Maryland USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9394-8957
Lifeng LinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics University of Arizona Tucson Arizona USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3562-9816
Mohammad Hassan MuradEvidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5502-5975
Jiayi TongDepartment of Biostatistics Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore Maryland USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1213-6699

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Publication bias (PB) threatens the validity of meta-analyses by distorting effect size estimates, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. With advanced pattern recognition and multimodal capabilities, large language models (LLMs) may be able to evaluate PB and make the systematic review process more efficient. Methods: We evaluated the ability of two state-of-the-art multimodal LLMs, GPT-4o and Llama 3.2 Vision, to detect PB using funnel plots alone and in combination with quantitative inputs. We simulated meta-analyses under varying conditions, including the absence of PB, different levels of presence of PB, varying total number of studies within a meta-analysis, and differing degrees of between-study heterogeneity. Results: Neither GPT-4o nor Llama 3.2 Vision consistently detected the presence of PB across various settings. Under no-publication-bias conditions, GPT-4o achieved a higher specificity outperforming Llama 3.2 Vision, with the difference most shown in the meta-analyses with 20 or more studies. The inclusion of quantitative inputs alongside funnel plots did not significantly improve performance. Additionally, between-study heterogeneity and patterns of non-reported studies had minimal impact on the models' assessments. Conclusions: The ability of LLMs to detect PB without fine-tuning is limited at the present time. This study highlights the need for specialized model adaptation before LLMs can be effectively integrated into meta-analysis workflows. Future research can focus on targeted refinements to enhance LLM performance and utility in evidence synthesis.

Indexed as

evidence synthesislarge language modelsmeta‐analysispublication bias

Identifiers

PMID41017966
PMCPMC12463026

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.