Citation screening using large language models for creating clinical practice guidelines: A protocol for a prospective study
Oami, T.; Okada, Y.; Nakada, T.-a.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe development of clinical practice guidelines requires a meticulous literature search and screening process. This study aims to explore the potential of large language models in the development of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG), focusing on enhancing literature search quality and reducing the citation screening workload. MethodsA prospective study will be conducted to compare the efficiency and accuracy of literature citation screening between the conventional method and a novel approach using large language models. We will use the large language model, namely GPT-4, to conduct literature searches for predefined clinical questions. We will objectively measure the time required for citation screening and compare it to the time taken using the conventional method. Following the screening, we will calculate and compare the sensitivity and specificity of the results obtained from the conventional method and the large language models-assisted process. The total time spent using both approaches will also be compared to assess workload reduction. Trial registrationThis research is submitted with the University hospital medical information network clinical trial registry (UMIN-CTR) [UMIN000053091]. Conflicts of interestAll authors declare no conflicts of interest to have. FundingNone
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 95%
- An interactive retrieval system for clinical trial studies with context-dependent protocol elements 94%
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines 95%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 95%
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 95%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 94%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of SURUS: a Named Entity Recognition System to Extract Knowledge from Interventional Study Records 94%
- Creating an Indexing Scheme for Case Series Articles 94%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Catchii: empowering literature review screening in healthcare 96%
- Synthesizing evidence from the earliest studies to support decision-making: to what extent could the evidence be reliable? 94%
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.