Back

MechaScreener: Large Language Model-Based Automated Screening for Systematic Reviews and Research

Forbes, C.; Carter, M.; Hudson, C.; Glasziou, P.; Clark, J.

2026-04-30 health informatics
10.64898/2026.04.28.26352009 medRxiv
Show abstract

Systematic Reviews (SRs) are the gold standard for evidence synthesis, but the manual title and abstract screening of thousands of references creates a severe bottleneck. Existing automated tools have historically struggled to achieve the near-perfect recall (sensitivity) required for reliable reviews. We developed MechaScreener as a "zero-shot" automated screening tool that utilises a Large Language Model (LLM) to rank article relevance. The tool requires no initial training data or manual pre-screening, as MechaScreener directly applies user-provided question elements (PICO) or inclusion/exclusion criteria to assign an inclusion probability score (1-5) to each reference. We evaluated the tool in two phases: a development phase using five reference libraries to optimise prompts, and an independent evaluation phase using 10 diverse Cochrane review libraries (comprising both randomised controlled trials and non-RCTs) containing over 58,000 references. In the evaluation dataset, MechaScreener achieved a perfect mean recall of 1.00 (100%, pooled 95% CI: 0.98-1.00), ensuring no relevant articles were missed. Concurrently, it achieved an overall mean specificity of 0.61 (61%, pooled 95% CI: 0.59-0.60). Specificity varied: from 0.21 in broad public health topics to 0.91 in precise pharmacological interventions-reflecting the tools built-in conservatism when evaluating ambiguous abstracts. By safely eliminating over 60% of irrelevant literature during the initial screening phase without compromising recall, MechaScreener functions as a highly reliable but low-effort "first-pass" filter, allowing researchers to substantially reduce manual workloads and reallocate resources toward full-text review and data extraction.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.