ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Leveraging prompt-driven generative AI for systematic reviews in digital psychiatry: A stage-matched comparative proof-of-concept for healthcare researchers and clinicians.
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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The scale and pace of evidence generation in digital psychiatry increasingly exceed the capacity of traditional systematic literature review (SLR) methods. Large language models (LLMs) are gaining traction in evidence synthesis, yet limited guidance exists for integrating generative AI into transparent, reproducible SLR workflows. To develop and evaluate a prompt-driven, modular decision-making framework for adaptable SLR workflows in digital psychiatry, and to compare stage-matched performance relative to a consensus-based human reference process. We conducted a mixed-methods, stage-matched comparative evaluation of three GPT-5 mode variants (Auto, Agent, and Deep Research) against a consensus-based human-led SLR workflow using a registered digital psychiatry review (PROSPERO CRD42025648122) as a case example. Nine SLR tasks were implemented within the ChatGPT interface using structured RISEN prompts: preliminary searches; research question, eligibility criteria, and search strategy development; article screening; data extraction; article summarization; critical appraisals; and descriptive results synthesis. Performance was evaluated using task-specific assessments of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, inter-rater agreement, reporting compliance, hallucination monitoring, and workflow feasibility. All GPT-5 mode variants were feasible across SLR stages, although performance varied by task and mode. No fabricated study-level content was identified during structured hallucination auditing. Auto mode performed best for structured rule-based tasks requiring efficiency and implementation-ready outputs (e.g., eligibility criteria). Agent mode excelled in conceptual integration and interpretive tasks (e.g., research question generation, critical appraisals, descriptive synthesis). Deep Research mode most closely approximated human reasoning for higher-order synthesis tasks, performing best in full-text article screening, article summarization, and narrative synthesis. Prompt-driven LLM workflows are feasible and semi-efficacious for selected SLR tasks in digital psychiatry when deployed within a modular, human-in-the-loop decision-support framework. Findings support task-specific deployment of an adaptable modular framework, enabling healthcare researchers and clinicians to modify LLM workflows according to methodological appropriateness, confidence in performance, and institutional review practices.
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.