JARVIS, should this study be selected for full-text screening? Performance of a Joint AI-ReViewer Interactive Screening tool for systematic reviews
Barreto, G. H. C.; Burke, C.; Davies, P.; Halicka, M.; Paterson, C.; Swinton, P.; Saunders, B.; Higgins, J. P. T.
Show abstract
BackgroundSystematic reviews are essential for evidence-based decision making in health sciences but require substantial time and resource for manual processes, particularly title and abstract screening. Recent advances in machine learning and large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promise in accelerating screening with high recall but are often limited by modest gains in efficiency, mostly due to the absence of a generalisable stopping criterion. Here, we introduce and report preliminary findings on the performance of a novel semi-automated active learning system, JARVIS, that integrates LLM-based reasoning using the PICOS framework, neural networks-based classification, and human decision-making to facilitate abstract screening. MethodsDatasets containing author-made inclusion and exclusion decisions from six published systematic reviews were used to pilot the semi-automated screening system. Model performance was evaluated across recall, specificity and area under the curve precision-recall (AUC-PR), using full-text inclusion as the ground truth. Estimated workload and financial savings were calculated by comparing total screening time and reviewer costs across manual and semi-automated scenarios. ResultsAcross the six review datasets, recall ranged between 98.2% and 100%, and specificity ranged between 97.9% and 99.2% at the defined stopping point. Across iterations, AUC-PR values ranged between 83.8% and 100%. Compared with human-only screening, JARVIS delivered workload savings between 71.0% and 93.6%. When a single reviewer read the excluded records, workload savings ranged between 35.6 % and 46.8%. ConclusionThe proposed semi-automated system substantially reduced reviewer workload while maintaining high recall, improving on previously reported approaches. Further validation in larger and more varied reviews, as well as prospective testing, is warranted.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A Novel Question-Answering Framework for Automated Abstract Screening Using Large Language Models 95%
- Incorporating Preprints in Systematic Reviews: A Preliminary Study of a Novel Method for Rapid Evidence Synthesis 94%
- A Web-based Tool for Automatically linking Clinical Trials to their Publications 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Ethical review of clinical research with generative AI: Evaluating ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility 96%
- Artificial Intelligence's Contribution to Biomedical Literature Search: Revolutionizing or Complicating? 92%
- Collaborative intelligence in AI: Evaluating the performance of a council of AIs on the USMLE 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Variomes: a high recall search engine to support the curation of genomic variants 92%
- Lifestyle factors in the biomedical literature: An ontology and comprehensive resources for named entity recognition 92%
- Associations on the Fly, a new feature aiming to facilitate exploration of the Open Targets Platform evidence 91%
"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.