Accuracy and reliability of data extraction for systematic reviews using large language models: A protocol for a prospective study
Oami, T.; Okada, Y.; Nakada, T.-a.
Show abstract
BackgroundSystematic reviews require extensive time and effort to manually extract and synthesize data from numerous screened studies. This study aims to investigate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to automate data extraction with high accuracy and minimal bias, using clinical questions (CQs) of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG) 2024. the study will evaluate the accuracy of three LLMs and optimize their command prompts to enhance accuracy. MethodsThis prospective study will objectively evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the extracted data from selected literature in the systematic review process in J-SSCG 2024 using three LLMs (GPT-4 Turbo, Claude 3, and Gemini 1.5 Pro). Detailed assessment of errors will be determined according to the predefined criteria for further improvement. Additionally, the time to complete each task will be measured and compared among the three LLMs. Following the primary analysis, we will optimize the original command with integration of prompt engineering techniques in the secondary analysis. Trial registrationThis research is submitted with the University hospital medical information network clinical trial registry (UMIN-CTR) [UMIN000054461]. Conflicts of interestAll authors declare no conflicts of interest to have.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 96%
- Strategies used to manage overlap of primary study data by exercise-related overviews. Protocol for a systematic methodological review 95%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Development, validation, and usage of metrics to evaluate clinical research hypothesis quality 95%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 95%
- Does pre-notification increase questionnaire response rates: a nested randomised control trial 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 97%
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 96%
- Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for network meta-analysis: a scoping review 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 95%
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 94%
- An interactive retrieval system for clinical trial studies with context-dependent protocol elements 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.