Abstract
Objective This paper aims to address the challenges in abstract screening within Systematic Reviews (SR) by leveraging the zero-shot capabilities of large language models (LLMs).
Methods We employ LLM to prioritise candidate studies by aligning abstracts with the selection criteria outlined in an SR protocol. Abstract screening was transformed into a novel question-answering (QA) framework, treating each selection criterion as a question addressed by LLM. The framework involves breaking down the selection criteria into multiple questions, properly prompting LLM to answer each question, scoring and re-ranking each answer, and combining the responses to make nuanced inclusion or exclusion decisions.
Results Large-scale validation was performed on the benchmark of CLEF eHealth 2019 Task 2: Technology- Assisted Reviews in Empirical Medicine. Focusing on GPT-3.5 as a case study, the proposed QA framework consistently exhibited a clear advantage over traditional information retrieval approaches and bespoke BERT- family models that were fine-tuned for prioritising candidate studies (i.e., from the BERT to PubMedBERT) across 31 datasets of four categories of SRs, underscoring their high potential in facilitating abstract screening.
Conclusion Investigation justified the indispensable value of leveraging selection criteria to improve the performance of automated abstract screening. LLMs demonstrated proficiency in prioritising candidate studies for abstract screening using the proposed QA framework. Significant performance improvements were obtained by re-ranking answers using the semantic alignment between abstracts and selection criteria. This further highlighted the pertinence of utilizing selection criteria to enhance abstract screening.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Royal Society of the UK (Grant/Award Number: IES\R1\231175), the National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences of China (Grant/Award Number: 18ZDA238), and Coventry University' Research Excellence Development Framework grant (Nov 2023-July 2024).
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I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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
added new sections: "Comparing Large Language Models" and "Quality of Question Answering" Accordingly, modified other parts and abstract and conclusion Highlighted the main conclusions in the main text Enriched the supplementary materials
