1. Abstract
Background Title and abstract (TiAb) screening in systematic literature reviews (SLRs) is labor-intensive. While agentic artificial intelligence (AI) platforms like Loon Lens 1.0 offer automation, lower precision can necessitate increased full-text review. This study evaluated the calibration of Loon Lens 1.0’s confidence ratings to prioritize citations for human review.
Methods We conducted a post-hoc analysis of citations included in a previous validation of Loon Lens 1.0. The data set consists of records screened by both Loon Lens 1.0 and human reviewers (gold standard). A logistic regression model predicted the probability of discrepancy between Loon Lens and human decisions, using Loon Lens confidence ratings (Low, Medium, High, Very High) as predictors. Model performance was assessed using bootstrapping with 1000 resamples, calculating optimism-corrected calibration, discrimination (C-index), and diagnostic metrics.
Results Low and Medium confidence citations comprised 5.1% of the sample but accounted for 60.6% of errors. The logistic regression model demonstrated excellent discrimination (C-index = 0.86) and calibration, accurately reflecting observed error rates. “Low” confidence citations had a predicted probability of error of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.56-0.74), decreasing substantially with higher confidence: 0.38 (95% CI 0.28-0.49) for “Medium”, 0.05 (95% CI 0.04-0.07) for “High”, and 0.01 (95% CI 0.007-0.01) for “Very High”. Human review of “Low” and “Medium” confidence abstracts would lead to improved overall precision from 62.97% to 81.4% while maintaining high sensitivity (99.3%) and specificity (98.1%).
Conclusions Loon Lens 1.0’s confidence ratings show good calibration used as the basis for a model predicting the probability of making an error. Targeted human review significantly improves precision while preserving recall and specificity. This calibrated model offers a practical strategy for optimizing human-AI collaboration in TiAb screening, addressing the challenge of lower precision in automated approaches. Further research is needed to assess generalizability across diverse review contexts.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors are shareholders in Loon
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Loon
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
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
