TiAb Review Plugin: A Browser-Based Tool for AI-Assisted Study Selection in Systematic Reviews
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Server-based screening tools impose subscription costs, while open-source alternatives require coding skills, and full-text screening has remained outside the scope of no-code open-source tools. We developed TiAb Review Plugin, an open-source Chrome browser extension that provides no-code, serverless artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted study selection covering both title and abstract (T&A) screening and full-text screening. It uses Google Sheets as a shared database and Google Drive as a PDF store, and users supply their own large language model (LLM) API key. For T&A screening, it offers manual review, LLM batch screening, and machine learning (ML) active learning. For full-text screening, it retrieves open-access PDFs from PubMed Central, Europe PMC, Unpaywall, OpenAlex, and publisher pages, supports blinded dual review with structured exclusion reasons and adjudication, optionally obtains an LLM judgment with page-anchored evidence, and computes PRISMA 2020 flow counts. We re-implemented the default ASReview algorithm (TF-IDF with Naive Bayes) in TypeScript and compared it with the Python original using 10-fold cross-validation on six datasets. For LLM T&A screening, we compared 16 parameter configurations on a benchmark dataset, validated the best (Gemini 3.0 Flash, low thinking budget, TopP 0.95) on five public datasets (1,038 to 5,628 records; 0.5% to 2.0% prevalence), and benchmarked nine further models from four developers. The TypeScript classifier produced top-100 rankings identical to ASReview on all six datasets. LLM T&A screening achieved recall of 94% to 100% with precision of 2% to 15%, and work saved over sampling at 95% recall (WSS@95) of 46.3% to 89.3%. No additional model exceeded the 96.1% recall of the reference configuration; the most recent models traded recall for precision. The classification accuracy of the full-text stage has not yet been evaluated.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Apr 2026.
Builds on
5 of 27 references.
References · 5
- 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
- 2020Open Source Software for Efficient and Transparent Reviewscited by 35
- 2023Automated Paper Screening for Clinical Reviews Using Large Language Modelscited by 29
- 2025AISysRev -- LLM-based Tool for Title-abstract Screeningcited by 4
- 2025DenseReviewer: A Screening Prioritisation Tool for Systematic Review based on Dense Retrievalcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024System for systematic literature review using multiple AI agents: Concept and an empirical evaluation
- 2024Streamlining Systematic Reviews: A Novel Application of Large Language Models
- 2025LatteReview: A Multi-Agent Framework for Systematic Review Automation Using Large Language Models
- 2023Automated title and abstract screening for scoping reviews using the GPT-4 Large Language Model
- 2026Checkpoints Are Not Enough: Trust Calibration in CoSLR, a Human-AI System for Systematic Literature Reviews
- 2025An AI-Driven Live Systematic Reviews in the Brain-Heart Interconnectome: Minimizing Research Waste and Advancing Evidence Synthesis
- 2026LitReview Arena: Evaluating Literature Review Agents with Battle-Style Peer Review Platform
- 2026meta-pipe: An LLM-agent pipeline for end-to-end automated systematic review and meta-analysis