ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Optimizing document retrieval using massive text embeddings and LLM prompt engineering.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid expansion of digital data poses a unique challenge for retrieving relevant and insightful information efficiently. In particular, the increasing volume of scientific publications has made literature reviews time-consuming. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) offers new opportunities to streamline this process.
methodsThis paper explores the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for query reformulation and evaluates the performance of nine massive text embedding models, varying in size and fine-tuning strategies, in the context of document retrieval. We apply multiple prompt engineering techniques to evaluate the ability of LLMs to generate effective queries, comparing them with human-crafted queries. These are used to retrieve documents utilizing nine embedding models. The evaluation is across five datasets using metrics such as recall, average precision, and rank-based measures.
resultsResults show that embedding models fine-tuned for semantic similarity consistently outperform general-purpose models, with UAE Large proving most robust across diverse domains. Furthermore, queries generated using zero-shot and few-shot prompting techniques often surpass the performance of human-formulated queries.
conclusionThese findings highlight the value of integrating LLMs and massive text embeddings to reduce manual effort in literature reviews. GenAI provides a reliable starting point for query formulation, with human input reserved for refinement when needed.
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.