ArticleBehavior research methods2026
AI-accelerated meta-analysis in psychology: Large language models code study properties with high accuracy.
Article in Behavior research methods, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Theoretically driven meta-analyses often involve testing whether study characteristics moderate an effect in a pattern that supports one of multiple competing theoretical accounts. To conduct such analyses, researchers must manually extract, i.e., code, these characteristics from sometimes hundreds of studies. Ideally, studies should be coded by two researchers independently to prevent errors and biases from compromising the dataset's integrity. The laborious nature of this task, however, means that meta-analysts usually settle for double-coding just a portion of the studies included in their study. Some researchers have proposed using large language models (LLMs) as a double-coder, showing that they can reliably extract explicitly stated information (e.g., publication year) from articles. However, meta-analyses in psychology generally require studies to be coded in terms of higher-level conceptual dimensions (e.g., the type of behavior rather than which behavior). The present study investigated whether two LLMs, OpenAI's GPT-5 and Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro, can code studies in this way. Both models replicated the study codes from three recently published meta-analyses in psychology with high accuracy (>92% overall), despite the limited information they received. LLM double-coding, therefore, offers a practical solution for meta-analysts seeking to ensure data integrity.
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.