mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Streamlining Systematic Reviews: A Novel Application of Large Language Models

arXiv 2412.15247 ↗First posted 14 Dec 2024cs.CL cs.IRcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Systematic reviews (SRs) are essential for evidence-based guidelines but are often limited by the time-consuming nature of literature screening. We propose and evaluate an in-house system based on Large Language Models (LLMs) for automating both title/abstract and full-text screening, addressing a critical gap in the literature. Using a completed SR on Vitamin D and falls (14,439 articles), the LLM-based system employed prompt engineering for title/abstract screening and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) for full-text screening. The system achieved an article exclusion rate (AER) of 99.5%, specificity of 99.6%, a false negative rate (FNR) of 0%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. After screening, only 78 articles required manual review, including all 20 identified by traditional methods, reducing manual screening time by 95.5%. For comparison, Rayyan, a commercial tool for title/abstract screening, achieved an AER of 72.1% and FNR of 5% when including articles Rayyan considered as undecided or likely to include. Lowering Rayyan's inclusion thresholds improved FNR to 0% but increased screening time. By addressing both screening phases, the LLM-based system significantly outperformed Rayyan and traditional methods, reducing total screening time to 25.5 hours while maintaining high accuracy. These findings highlight the transformative potential of LLMs in SR workflows by offering a scalable, efficient, and accurate solution, particularly for the full-text screening phase, which has lacked automation tools.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Dec 2024.

Builds on

5 of 26 references.

References · 5

  1. 2014Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited referencescited by 64
  2. 2023Can large language models replace humans in the systematic review process? Evaluating GPT-4's efficacy in screening and extracting data from peer-reviewed and grey literature in multiple languagescited by 36
  3. 2020Open Source Software for Efficient and Transparent Reviewscited by 35
  4. 2023Automated Paper Screening for Clinical Reviews Using Large Language Modelscited by 29
  5. 2024The Promise and Challenges of Using LLMs to Accelerate the Screening Process of Systematic Reviewscited by 14

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 1.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Can Large Language Models Match the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews?
  2. 2023Automated title and abstract screening for scoping reviews using the GPT-4 Large Language Model
  3. 2025Evaluating Large Language Models for Evidence-Based Clinical Question Answering
  4. 2025Reassessing Large Language Model Boolean Query Generation for Systematic Reviews
  5. 2026Evaluating AI-based Scientific Knowledge Synthesis with Epidemiological Systematic Reviews
  6. 2024Empowering Meta-Analysis: Leveraging Large Language Models for Scientific Synthesis
  7. 2025LatteReview: A Multi-Agent Framework for Systematic Review Automation Using Large Language Models
  8. 2026MedMeta: A Benchmark for LLMs in Synthesizing Meta-Analysis Conclusion from Medical Studies