Abstract
Objective:This study aimed to evaluate the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the task of abstract screening in systematic review and meta-analysis studies, exploring their effectiveness, efficiency, and potential integration into existing human expert-based workflows.
Methods:We developed automation scripts in Python to interact with the APIs of several LLM tools, including ChatGPT v4.0, ChatGPT v3.5, Google PaLM, and Meta Llama 2. This study focused on three databases of abstracts and used them as benchmarks to evaluate the performance of these LLM tools in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy. The results of the LLM tools were compared to human-curated inclusion decisions, gold standard for systematic review and meta-analysis studies.
Results:Different LLM tools had varying abilities in abstract screening. Chat GPT v4.0 demonstrated remarkable performance, with balanced sensitivity and specificity, and overall accuracy consistently reaching or exceeding 90%, indicating a high potential for LLMs in abstract screening tasks. The study found that LLMs could provide reliable results with minimal human effort and thus serve as a cost-effective and efficient alternative to traditional abstract screening methods.
Conclusion:While LLM tools are not yet ready to completely replace human experts in abstract screening, they show great promise in revolutionizing the process. They can serve as autonomous AI reviewers, contribute to collaborative workflows with human experts, and integrate with hybrid approaches to develop custom tools for increased efficiency. As technology continues to advance, LLMs are poised to play an increasingly important role in abstract screening, reshaping the workflow of systemic review and meta-analysis studies.