ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2025
Human-in-the-Loop Artificial Intelligence System for Systematic Literature Review: Methods and Validations for the AutoLit Review Software.
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. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Resources for the Screening of Titles and Abstracts in Systematic Reviews: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- The Benign COMPARE Study: Comparing Perioperative Outcomes of Benign Minimally Invasive Laparoscopic, da Vinci Robotic, and Open Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Evidence.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Article
- A Machine Learning and Large Language Model Tool for Systematic Literature Reviews of Health Economic Evidence: A Validation Study.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Using full agreement across multiple large language models for title-and-abstract screening in systematic reviews: a proof-of-concept.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Human-in-the-Loop Artificial Intelligence System for Systematic Literature Review: Methods and Validations for the AutoLit Review Software.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2026-06-01Conflict of Interest · Error by Journal/Publisher ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: While artificial intelligence (AI) tools have been utilized for individual stages within the systematic literature review (SLR) process, no tool has previously been shown to support each critical SLR step. In addition, the need for expert oversight has been recognized to ensure the quality of SLR findings. Here, we describe a complete methodology for utilizing our AI SLR tool with human-in-the-loop curation workflows, as well as AI validations, time savings, and approaches to ensure compliance with best review practices. Methods: SLRs require completing Search, Screening, and Extraction from relevant studies, with meta-analysis and critical appraisal as relevant. We present a full methodological framework for completing SLRs utilizing our AutoLit software (Nested Knowledge). This system integrates AI models into the central steps in SLR: Search strategy generation, Dual Screening of Titles/Abstracts and Full Texts, and Extraction of qualitative and quantitative evidence. The system also offers manual Critical Appraisal and Insight drafting and fully-automated Network Meta-analysis. Validations comparing AI performance to experts are reported, and where relevant, time savings and 'rapid review' alternatives to the SLR workflow. Results: Search strategy generation with the Smart Search AI can turn a Research Question into full Boolean strings with 76.8% and 79.6% Recall in two validation sets. Supervised machine learning tools can achieve 82-97% Recall in reviewer-level Screening. Population, Interventions/Comparators, and Outcomes (PICOs) extraction achieved F1 of 0.74; accuracy for study type, location, and size were 74%, 78%, and 91%, respectively. Time savings of 50% in Abstract Screening and 70-80% in qualitative extraction were reported. Extraction of user-specified qualitative and quantitative tags and data elements remains exploratory and requires human curation for SLRs. Conclusion: AI systems can support high-quality, human-in-the-loop execution of key SLR stages. Transparency, replicability, and expert oversight are central to the use of AI SLR tools.
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.