PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Janoudi, Ghayath AU - Uzun, Mara AU - Jurdana, Mia AU - Fuzul, Ena AU - Ivkovic, Josip TI - Loon Lens 1.0 Validation: Agentic AI for Title and Abstract Screening in Systematic Literature Reviews AID - 10.1101/2024.09.06.24313186 DP - 2024 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2024.09.06.24313186 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/06/2024.09.06.24313186.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/06/2024.09.06.24313186.full AB - Introduction Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are critical for informing clinical research and practice, but they are time-consuming and resource-intensive, particularly during Title and Abstract (TiAb) screening. Loon Lens, an autonomous, agentic AI platform, streamlines TiAb screening without the need for human reviewers to conduct any screening.Methods This study validates Loon Lens against human reviewer decisions across eight SLRs conducted by Canada’s Drug Agency, covering a range of drugs and eligibility criteria. A total of 3,796 citations were retrieved, with human reviewers identifying 287 (7.6%) for inclusion. Loon Lens autonomously screened the same citations based on the provided inclusion and exclusion criteria. Metrics such as accuracy, recall, precision, F1 score, specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Bootstrapping was applied to compute 95% confidence intervals.Results Loon Lens achieved an accuracy of 95.5% (95% CI: 94.8–96.1), with recall at 98.95% (95% CI: 97.57–100%) and specificity at 95.24% (95% CI: 94.54–95.89%). Precision was lower at 62.97% (95% CI: 58.39–67.27%), suggesting that Loon Lens included more citations for full-text screening compared to human reviewers. The F1 score was 0.770 (95% CI: 0.734–0.802), indicating a strong balance between precision and recall.Conclusion Loon Lens demonstrates the ability to autonomously conduct TiAb screening with a substantial potential for reducing the time and cost associated with manual or semi-autonomous TiAb screening in SLRs. While improvements in precision are needed, the platform offers a scalable, autonomous solution for systematic reviews. Access to Loon Lens is available upon request at https://loonlens.com/.Competing Interest StatementThe authors work as employees or contractors at Loon.Funding StatementThis study was funded by Loon.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors