Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42045772›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

AI-accelerated meta-analysis in psychology: Large language models code study properties with high accuracy.

Shaheed Azaad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Shaheed AzaadInstitute of Psychology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany. sazaad@uni-muenster.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1242-4284

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Meta-Analysis as TopicPsychologyGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language ModelsArtificial intelligenceLarge language modelsMeta-analysisStudy codingSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42045772
PMCPMC13121511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.