ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluating large language model performance in Risk of Bias assessments: A cross-sectional validation study.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the reliability and diagnostic performance of ChatGPT-o3 in conducting Risk of Bias (RoB) assessments of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis methodological validation study analyzed 50 RCTs sampled from 50 published meta-analyses. Each trial was independently assessed by the original systematic review authors (OSRAs), our masked human panel, and ChatGPT-o3. Structured prompts based on RoB 2.0 guidelines were used to elicit ChatGPT-o3 assessments. Agreement was evaluated using weighted Cohen's kappa and Gwet's AC2. Diagnostic performance was measured by sensitivity, specificity, and balanced accuracy, with human ratings as the reference.
resultsChatGPT-o3 classified 34% of trials as high risk, compared with 22% by our panel, and 12% by the OSRAs. Agreement was modest (median κ: 0.33 with our panel; 0.14 with OSRAs). Overall Gwet's AC2 was 0.30. For detecting high-risk trials, ChatGPT-o3 achieved a sensitivity of 0.46, specificity of 0.69, and balanced accuracy of 0.57. For low-risk trials, its sensitivity was 0.47, specificity was 0.86, and balanced accuracy was 0.66. DISCUSSION: The results indicate that ChatGPT-o3 produced more conservative RoB ratings than human reviewers, identifying a greater percentage of trials as having a high RoB.
conclusionWhile unsuitable to be used as a sole assessor, ChatGPT-o3 may serve as an adjunct tool to enhance the efficiency and consistency of RoB assessments in systematic reviews.
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.