Aug 2026· Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods· Vol 4· 0 citations· 195 references
Medicine
TL;DR
This review aims to identify current evidence concerning AI use during preliminary SLR reference screening and describes characteristics such as the different metrics used for reporting performance and how the different algorithms, pipelines, workflows or web applications are validated.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of technology enabling machines to emulate complex human skills; it can also entail problem‐solving using bioinspired methods. It is used for automating systematic literature reviews (SLR), that is, defining a clinical question, locating relevant literature, preliminary screening, study evaluation, data extraction and analysis. Title and abstract screening is one of the most time‐consuming and error‐prone phases involved in developing a systematic review. While AI promises to expedite this process, adopting it faces challenges due to concerns about compatibility and transparency. This review aims to identify current evidence concerning AI use during preliminary SLR reference screening; it describes characteristics such as the different metrics used for reporting performance and how the different algorithms, pipelines, workflows or web applications are validated. AI resource users' reflections regarding SLR screening automation have also been summarized.
ARISMA treats AI as an inspected, benchmarked, logged, and reversible assistant rather than an autonomous reviewer, built around one governing principle: every consequential scientific decision must remain human-interpretable, human-auditable, and human-accountable.
An evaluation framework that accounts for class imbalance is proposed, i.e., the natural prevalence of excluded articles relative to included articles in SRs, and PromptSR, a tool designed to support prompt experimentation, experiment management, and result analysis for LLM-based screening are introduced.
G.Aravind Kumar, Luciano Marchezan, G. Genois et al.· 0 citations
Manual abstract screening in systematic reviews is a time-consuming and labour-intensive task. With the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), the number of published articles has grown substantially, adding to the workload of review studies that rely on robust and timely evidence synthesis. At the same time, AI-a...
Selin Akaraci, S. Jones, C. Tate et al.· Systematic Reviews· 0 citations
Evidence supported GenAI use for high-recall title/abstract screening and structured first-pass data extraction within human-in-the-loop workflows with explicit oversight, and performance was most reliable within clearly defined workflows.
R. Fleurence, Riaz Qureshi, Rakesh Aggarwal et al.· Value in Health· 0 citations
The need for enhanced global collaboration and the ethical, clinically reliable, and sustainable incorporation of AI in clinical laboratories is underscored and underscores the need for enhanced global collaboration.
Tika Adilistya, Firman Pribadi· Indonesian Journal of Global...· 0 citations
A Systematic Mapping Study on the quality of AI-based software identifies six recurring challenge categories, with the most prominent being limitations in existing quality assessment models followed by issues in non-functional requirement management, quality-aware development, and quality assurance.
Maryum Hamdani, Mateen Ahmed Abbasi, Marko Jäntti et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.