ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Analysis of article screening and data extraction performance by an AI systematic literature review platform.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Exploratory Evaluation of a Large Language Model-Supported Scoping Review Workflow.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Resources for the Screening of Titles and Abstracts in Systematic Reviews: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- AI-Assisted Systematic Literature Review of the Economic Burden of Pneumococcal Disease: Development and Validation Study.JMIR AI · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are critical to health research and decision-making but are often time- and labor-intensive. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools like large language models (LLMs) provide a promising way to automate these processes. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review on the cost-effectiveness of adult pneumococcal vaccination and prospectively assessed the performance of our AI-assisted review platform, Intelligent Systematic Literature Review (ISLaR) 2.0, compared to expert researchers. Results: ISLaR demonstrated high accuracy (0.87 full-text screening; 0.86 data extraction), precision (0.88; 0.86), and sensitivity (0.91; 0.98) in article screening and data extraction tasks, but lower specificity (0.79; 0.42), especially when extracting data from tables. The platform reduced abstract and full-text screening time by over 90% compared to human reviewers. Conclusion: The platform has strong potential to reduce reviewer workload but requires further development.
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.