Scaling the Prompt: How Batch Size Shapes Performance of Mid-2025 State-of-the-Art LLMs in Automated Title-and-Abstract Screening
Fagerberg, P.; Sallander, O.; Vikhe Patil, K.; Berg, A.; Nyman, A.; Borg, N.; Linden, T.
Show abstract
BackgroundManual abstract screening is a primary bottleneck in evidence synthesis. Emerging evidence suggests that large language models (LLMs) can automate this task, but their performance when processing multiple records simultaneously in "batches" is uncertain. ObjectivesTo evaluate the classification performance of four state-of-the-art LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5, and GPT-5 mini) in predicting study eligibility across a wide range of batch sizes for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. MethodsWe used a gold-standard dataset of 790 records (93 inclusions) from a published Cochrane Review. Using the public APIs for each model, batches of 1 to 790 citations were submitted to classify records as Include or Exclude. Performance was assessed using sensitivity and specificity, with internal validation conducted through 10 repeated runs for each model-batch combination. ResultsGemini 2.5 Pro was the most robust model, successfully processing the full 790-record batch. In contrast, GPT-5 failed at batches [≥]400, while GPT-5 mini and Gemini 2.5 Flash failed at the 790-record batch. Overall, all models demonstrated strong performance within their operational ranges, with two notable exceptions: Gemini 2.5 Flash showed low initial sensitivity at batch 1, and GPT-5 minis sensitivity degraded at higher batch sizes (from 0.88 at batch 200 to 0.48 at batch 400). At a practical batch size of 100, Gemini 2.5 Pro achieved the highest sensitivity (1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.00), whereas GPT-5 delivered the highest specificity (0.98, 95% CI 0.98-0.98). ConclusionState-of-the-art LLMs can effectively screen multiple abstracts per prompt, moving beyond inefficient single-record processing. However, performance is model-dependent, revealing trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, batch size optimisation and strategic model selection are important parameters for successful implementation.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Web-based Tool for Automatically linking Clinical Trials to their Publications 95%
- Incorporating Preprints in Systematic Reviews: A Preliminary Study of a Novel Method for Rapid Evidence Synthesis 95%
- A Novel Question-Answering Framework for Automated Abstract Screening Using Large Language Models 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Catchii: empowering literature review screening in healthcare 97%
- Fast and frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews 95%
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 97%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 93%
- COVID-19 L·OVE repository is highly comprehensive and can be used as a single source for COVID-19 studies 93%
"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.