mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

TiAb Review Plugin: A Browser-Based Tool for AI-Assisted Study Selection in Systematic Reviews

arXiv 2604.08602 ↗First posted 8 Apr 2026cs.DL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

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

  1. 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
  2. 2020Open Source Software for Efficient and Transparent Reviewscited by 35
  3. 2023Automated Paper Screening for Clinical Reviews Using Large Language Modelscited by 29
  4. 2025AISysRev -- LLM-based Tool for Title-abstract Screeningcited by 4
  5. 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

  1. 2024System for systematic literature review using multiple AI agents: Concept and an empirical evaluation
  2. 2024Streamlining Systematic Reviews: A Novel Application of Large Language Models
  3. 2025LatteReview: A Multi-Agent Framework for Systematic Review Automation Using Large Language Models
  4. 2023Automated title and abstract screening for scoping reviews using the GPT-4 Large Language Model
  5. 2026Checkpoints Are Not Enough: Trust Calibration in CoSLR, a Human-AI System for Systematic Literature Reviews
  6. 2025An AI-Driven Live Systematic Reviews in the Brain-Heart Interconnectome: Minimizing Research Waste and Advancing Evidence Synthesis
  7. 2026LitReview Arena: Evaluating Literature Review Agents with Battle-Style Peer Review Platform
  8. 2026meta-pipe: An LLM-agent pipeline for end-to-end automated systematic review and meta-analysis