ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Artificial intelligence-driven study selection in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, emulated trials and economic evaluation studies using large language models.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews (SRs) are key to evidence-based medicine but are often labor-intensive, especially in the study selection step. This study assessed the use of large language models (LLMs) to automate SR study screening and selection. Five SR projects were included: two published therapeutic SRs (SR1-2), two ongoing emulated-trial SRs (SR3-4), and one economic evaluation SR (SR5). The total number of studies screened for each SR was 3,966, 3,147, 695, 3,096 and 485, respectively, with 20, 24, 46, 32 and 70 eligible studies. Three LLMs-Gemini 2.0 Flash, Llama 3.1, and Qwen 2.5-were evaluated using training sets (five studies), title/abstract datasets, and full-text datasets predicted as relevant. Prompts based on the PICOS framework were iteratively refined using a recall-first strategy. Outputs were compared with human reviewer classifications using recall, number needed to screen (NNS), and percentage reduced workload with 95% confidence intervals. In the title/abstract screening phase, Llama 3.1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash achieved consistently high recall (90.00%-100.00% and 90.48%-100.00%), with workload reduction of 61.92%-97.10% and 65.21%-97.03%, respectively. Qwen 2.5 achieved the highest workload reduction (76.16%-99.19%) but showed the lowest recall (76.67%-88.89%). In the full-text selection phase, Llama 3.1 achieved the highest recall (93.33%-100.00%) with workload reductions of 73.15%-97.41%, but slower processing time (approximately 2.3-3.6 minutes per document). Qwen 2.5 yielded lower recall (66.67%-89.71%), despite the highest workload reduction (80.82%-99.44%) and similarly slow inference times (approximately 3.0-4.2 minutes per document). Gemini 2.0 Flash balanced high recall (83.33%-100.00%) with substantial workload reduction (76.71%-98.91%) and markedly faster inference (approximately 4-8 seconds per document). LLMs-particularly Llama 3.1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash-can substantially reduce SR screening workload while maintaining high recall when guided by a recall-first prompting framework. Remaining challenges include reproducibility in closed-source models and generalizability across diverse SR topics.
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.