Back

A large language model-assisted workflow for generating a living evidence base for climate-sensitive foodborne disease

Elson, R.; McIntyre, K. M.; Hardingham, M. B.; Luechtefeld, T.; Lake, I. R.

2026-07-08 health informatics
10.64898/2026.07.04.26357263 medRxiv
Show abstract

Abstract Climate change is altering environmental conditions that influence foodborne disease transmission, yet traditional systematic reviews cannot keep pace with expanding evidence. We assessed whether an LLM-assisted workflow could generate a rapid, repeatable, and policy-relevant living evidence base for climate-sensitive foodborne disease. We combined structured PubMed searches (2010-2023), gold-standard human labelling, and iterative refinement of a GPT?4?Turbo?based auto-labeller within the SysRev platform. Pathogens of public-health importance in England were selected a priori. Model performance was evaluated against human reviewers using recall, precision, specificity, accuracy, and balanced accuracy. The refined inclusion model achieved 89{middle dot}2% recall, 59{middle dot}2% precision, 84{middle dot}5% specificity, and 85{middle dot}4% accuracy across 1,044 screened abstracts, identifying 436 studies for inclusion. Post-hoc re-evaluation of discordant abstracts showed that records excluded by the model but included during initial human screening did not meet the refined inclusion criteria. Frequently identified climate exposures included rainfall, temperature, seasonality, and humidity; norovirus, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Cryptosporidium were the most common pathogens. An LLM-assisted workflow can generate living evidence for climate-sensitive foodborne disease with high recall and improved screening consistency. The approach is scalable, auditable, and suitable for secure institutional environments, supporting horizon scanning and climate-health risk assessment.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ
51 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.0%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 24%
6.8%
3
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.8%
4
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 23%
6.8%
5
BMJ Public Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
6
BMC Medical Research Methodology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.5%
7
Wellcome Open Research
67 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.8%
8
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
9
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
10
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
50% of probability mass above
11
Research Synthesis Methods
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
12
Public Health
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
13
npj Antimicrobials and Resistance
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
14
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
15
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
Clinical Trials
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
18
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
20
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.3%
21
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
22
Database
61 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
23
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
24
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
25
European Journal of Epidemiology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
26
JAMA Pediatrics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
27
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
28
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
29
International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
30
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%