Large language models for automated PRISMA 2020 adherence checking
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Evaluating adherence to PRISMA 2020 guideline remains a burden in the peer review process. To address the lack of shareable benchmarks, we constructed a copyright-aware benchmark of 108 Creative Commons-licensed systematic reviews and evaluated ten large language models (LLMs) across five input formats. In a development cohort, supplying structured PRISMA 2020 checklists (Markdown, JSON, XML, or plain text) yielded 78.7-79.7% accuracy versus 45.21% for manuscript-only input (p less than 0.0001), with no differences between structured formats (p>0.9). Across models, accuracy ranged from 70.6-82.8% with distinct sensitivity-specificity trade-offs, replicated in an independent validation cohort. We then selected Qwen3-Max (a high-sensitivity open-weight model) and extended evaluation to the full dataset (n=120), achieving 95.1% sensitivity and 49.3% specificity. Structured checklist provision substantially improves LLM-based PRISMA assessment, though human expert verification remains essential before editorial decisions.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Nov 2025.
Builds on
4 of 27 references.
References · 4
- 2024LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methodscited by 465
- 2023Stop Uploading Test Data in Plain Text: Practical Strategies for Mitigating Data Contamination by Evaluation Benchmarkscited by 142
- 2024Does Prompt Formatting Have Any Impact on LLM Performance?cited by 141
- 2025A Survey on Large Language Model Benchmarkscited by 36
Built on by
Not cited yet.