ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2026
Comparison of three large language models' ability to assess the risk of bias using ROBINS-I tool.
Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 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
Objectives: This study aims to compare the reliability and accuracy of three large language models (LLMs) (Claude, Gemini and GPT) in assessing the risk of bias of nonrandomised studies using the ROBINS-I tool. Methods and analysis: We conducted a secondary analysis of 171 nonrandomised studies previously assessed with Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool by two independent human review teams. Only studies with concordant human domain-level ratings were included. Each study was independently assessed twice by Claude, Gemini and Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) using agent-based structured implementations of the ROBINS-I tool. Reliability (agreement between two runs of the same LLM) was evaluated using percent agreement and Gwet's AC1. Accuracy (agreement with human reviewers) was assessed only for studies with consistent LLM ratings, using the same metrics. Results: Claude demonstrated high reliability across all domains (79.5-98.0% agreement, AC1=0.729-0.975). Gemini showed moderate-to-high reliability (agreement 76.7-100%, AC1=0.680-1.0). GPT exhibited lower reliability overall, though domain-level agreement ranged from 70.9-95.6% (AC1=0.596-0.944). In terms of accuracy, Claude showed overall poor agreement with human reviewers (14.4-68.5% agreement; low AC1 values). Gemini demonstrated moderate-to-high accuracy in several domains, including deviations from intended interventions (79.6%, AC1=0.848) and measurement of outcomes (73.9%, AC1=0.702), with the highest overall agreement (40.0%, AC1=0.672). GPT showed variable accuracy, with the highest in measurement of outcomes (62.8%, AC1=0.571) and classification of interventions (57.8%, AC1=0.498), but poor performance in selection (14.3%, AC1 = -0.041) and overall agreement (23.0%, AC1=0.267). Conclusions: Claude was internally consistent but poorly aligned with human reviewers. Gemini achieved both high reliability and moderate-to-high accuracy, whereas GPT had lower reliability and mixed accuracy. Current off-the-shelf LLMs cannot reliably perform ROBINS-I risk of bias assessments.
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.