SynthesisFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2025
Can AI assess literature like experts? An entropy-based comparison of ChatGPT-4o, DeepSeek R1, and human ratings.
Synthesis in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating large language models for abstract evaluation tasks: an empirical study.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Manual quality assessment of systematic reviews is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and subject to reviewer bias. With recent advances in large language models (LLMs), it is important to evaluate their reliability and efficiency as potential replacements for human reviewers. Aim: This study assessed whether generative AI models can substitute for manual reviewers in literature quality assessment by examining rating consistency, time efficiency, and discriminatory performance across four established appraisal tools. Methods: Ninety-one systematic reviews were evaluated using AMSTAR 2, CASP, PEDro, and RoB 2 by both human reviewers and two LLMs (ChatGPT-4.0 and DeepSeek R1). Entropy-based indicators quantified rating consistency, while Spearman correlations, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and processing-time comparisons were used to assess the relationship between time variability and scoring reliability. Results: The two LLMs demonstrated high consistency with human ratings (mean entropy = 0.42), with particularly strong alignment for PEDro (0.17) and CASP (0.25). Average processing time per article was markedly shorter for LLMs (33.09 s) compared with human reviewers (1,582.50 s), representing a 47.80-fold increase in efficiency. Spearman correlation analysis showed a statistically significant positive association between processing-time variability and rating entropy (ρ = 0.24, Conclusion: LLMs markedly reduce appraisal time while maintaining acceptable rating consistency in literature quality assessment. Although human validation is recommended for cases with high processing-time variability (>46.00 s), generative AI represents a promising approach for standardized, efficient, and scalable quality appraisal in evidence synthesis.
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.