Abstract
Background Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT showed great potential in aiding medical research. A heavy workload in filtering records is needed during the research process of evidence-based medicine, especially meta-analysis. However, no study tried to use LLMs to help screen records in meta-analysis.
Objective In this research, we aimed to explore the possibility of incorporating ChatGPT to facilitate the screening step based on the title and abstract of records during meta-analysis.
Methods To assess our strategy, we selected three meta-analyses from the literature, together with a glioma meta-analysis embedded in the study, as additional validation. For the automatic selection of records from curated meta-analyses, a four-step strategy called LARS-GPT was developed, consisting of (1) criteria selection and single-prompt (prompt with one criterion) creation, (2) best combination identification, (3) combined-prompt (prompt with one or more criteria) creation, and (4) request sending and answer summary. Recall, workload reduction, precision, and F1 score were calculated to assess the performance of LARS-GPT.
Results A variable performance was found between different single-prompts with a mean recall of 0.841. Based on these single-prompts, we were able to find combinations with performance better than the pre-set threshold. Finally, with a best combination of criteria identified, LARS-GPT showed a 39.5% workload reduction on average with a recall greater than 0.9.
Conclusions We show here the groundbreaking finding that automatic selection of literature for meta-analysis is possible with ChatGPT. We provide it here as a pipeline, LARS-GPT, which showed a great workload reduction while maintaining a pre-set recall.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=425790
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the China Scholarship Council (CSC; grant no. 202206090022).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Language polished. The detailed results of glioma meta-analysis conducted was removed.
Data Availability
The original code used in this paper are available in Github (https://github.com/xiangmingcai/LARS). All responses from ChatGPT can be found in Supplementary File 2. Any additional information required is available from the corresponding author upon request.
