# Large language models for automated PRISMA 2020 adherence checking

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.16707 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.16707/

## 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 (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [Stop Uploading Test Data in Plain Text: Practical Strategies for Mitigating Data Contamination by Evaluation Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10160/) (2023)
- [Does Prompt Formatting Have Any Impact on LLM Performance?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.10541/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Large Language Model Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.15361/) (2025)

## 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.