mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Large language models for automated PRISMA 2020 adherence checking

arXiv 2511.16707 ↗First posted 20 Nov 2025cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

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

  1. 2024LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methodscited by 465
  2. 2023Stop Uploading Test Data in Plain Text: Practical Strategies for Mitigating Data Contamination by Evaluation Benchmarkscited by 142
  3. 2024Does Prompt Formatting Have Any Impact on LLM Performance?cited by 141
  4. 2025A Survey on Large Language Model Benchmarkscited by 36

Built on by

Not cited yet.