Automated title and abstract screening for scoping reviews using the GPT-4 Large Language Model
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Scoping reviews, a type of literature review, require intensive human effort to screen large numbers of scholarly sources for their relevance to the review objectives. This manuscript introduces GPTscreenR, a package for the R statistical programming language that uses the GPT-4 Large Language Model (LLM) to automatically screen sources. The package makes use of the chain-of-thought technique with the goal of maximising performance on complex screening tasks. In validation against consensus human reviewer decisions, GPTscreenR performed similarly to an alternative zero-shot technique, with a sensitivity of 71%, specificity of 89%, and overall accuracy of 84%. Neither method achieved perfect accuracy nor human levels of intraobserver agreement. GPTscreenR demonstrates the potential for LLMs to support scholarly work and provides a user-friendly software framework that can be integrated into existing review processes.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Nov 2023.
Builds on
3 of 27 references.
References · 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.
6 papers.
- 2024The Promise and Challenges of Using LLMs to Accelerate the Screening Process of Systematic Reviewscited by 14
- 2025LLM4SCREENLIT: Recommendations on Assessing the Performance of Large Language Models for Screening Literature in Systematic Reviewscited by 5
- 2024Measuring Risk of Bias in Biomedical Reports: The RoBBR Benchmarkcited by 4
- 2025Leveraging LLMs for Title and Abstract Screening for Systematic Review: A Cost-Effective Dynamic Few-Shot Learning Approachcited by 0
- 2026Preliminary Guidelines for Using and Evaluating GenAI Tools to Support Systematic Literature Reviewscited by 0
- 2026Evaluating human and LLM screening workflows in a conceptually complex scoping review: Recall--workload trade-offs and run-to-run consistencycited by 0
- 2026Evaluating human and LLM screening workflows in a conceptually complex scoping review: Recall--workload trade-offs and run-to-run consistency27 Aug 2026
- 2026Preliminary Guidelines for Using and Evaluating GenAI Tools to Support Systematic Literature Reviews27 Jul 2026
- 2025Leveraging LLMs for Title and Abstract Screening for Systematic Review: A Cost-Effective Dynamic Few-Shot Learning Approach12 Dec 2025
- 2025LLM4SCREENLIT: Recommendations on Assessing the Performance of Large Language Models for Screening Literature in Systematic Reviews16 Nov 2025
- 2024Measuring Risk of Bias in Biomedical Reports: The RoBBR Benchmark28 Nov 2024
- 2024The Promise and Challenges of Using LLMs to Accelerate the Screening Process of Systematic Reviews24 Apr 2024
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Streamlining Systematic Reviews: A Novel Application of Large Language Models
- 2025MMReview: A Multidisciplinary and Multimodal Benchmark for LLM-Based Peer Review Automation
- 2026Evaluating AI-based Scientific Knowledge Synthesis with Epidemiological Systematic Reviews
- 2025Can Large Language Models Match the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews?
- 2026Checkpoints Are Not Enough: Trust Calibration in CoSLR, a Human-AI System for Systematic Literature Reviews
- 2025LatteReview: A Multi-Agent Framework for Systematic Review Automation Using Large Language Models
- 2025ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews
- 2024CycleResearcher: Improving Automated Research via Automated Review