SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Sensitivity, specificity and avoidable workload of using a large language models for title and abstract screening in systematic reviews and meta-analyses
16 references·2 citing·48 second hop
Sensitivity, specificity and avoidable workload of using a large language models for title and abstract screening in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2023)Sensitivity, specificity and avoidable wo…Can large language models replace humans in systematic reviews? Evaluating GPT ‐4's efficacy in screening and extracting data from peer‐reviewed and grey literature in multiple languages (2024)Can large language models rep…Automated Paper Screening for Clinical Reviews Using Large Language Models: Data Analysis Study (2023)Automated Paper Screening for…A novel application of machine learning and zero-shot classification methods for automated abstract screening in systematic reviews (2023)A novel application of machin…Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases (2021)Growth rates of modern scienc…An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews (2021)An open source machine learni…Statistical stopping criteria for automated screening in systematic reviews (2020)Statistical stopping criteria…Error rates of human reviewers during abstract screening in systematic reviews (2020)Error rates of human reviewer…Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review (2019)Single screening versus conve…Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy (2018)Four principles to make evide…Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review (2017)Characteristics and knowledge…Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer (2016)Wasted research when systemat…Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews (2016)Rayyan—a web and mobile app f…A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard (2009)A review of solutions for dia…Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews (2005)Bivariate analysis of sensiti…Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (2004)Sources of Variation and Bias…Estimating Time to Conduct a Meta-analysis From Number of Citations Retrieved (1999)Estimating Time to Conduct a …Evaluation of Large Language Models for Peer Review in Transplantation Research: Algorithm Validation Study (2026)Evaluation of Large Language …How to Write Effective Prompts for Screening Biomedical Literature Using Large Language Models (2025)How to Write Effective Prompt…Empirical Evidence of Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Tests (1999)The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration (2003)A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies (2006)Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies (2006)Screening for Depression in Medical Settings with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ): A Diagnostic Meta-Analysis (2007)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)Qualitative Research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research (1995)Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative (2003)Understanding the Direction of Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (2013)Recommendations for reporting the results of studies of instrument and scale development and testing (2014)Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: A systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard – An update (2019)The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance (2003)Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses (2011)Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (2018)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Digital Mental Health Interventions for Depression, Anxiety, and Enhancement of Psychological Well-Being Among College Students: Systematic Review (2019)Barriers to and Facilitators of User Engagement With Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review (2021)Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (2013)Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches (2015)Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them (2020)Prevalence of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder in health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2021)Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness (2024)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations (2019)An evaluation of DistillerSR’s machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening – impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes (2020)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2020)Evaluating the effectiveness of large language models in abstract screening: a comparative analysis (2024)The SAFE procedure: a practical stopping heuristic for active learning-based screening in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2024)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Promoting an open research culture (2015)Artificial intelligence and the conduct of literature reviews (2021)Artificial intelligence in systematic reviews: promising when appropriately used (2023)Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: opportunities and challenges (2024)Little Science, Big Science (1963)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Networks of Scientific Papers (1965)ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health (2023)Science education in an age of misinformation (2023)A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales (1960)Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic (2012)Summarizing systematic reviews (2015)Transforming literature screening: The emerging role of large language models in systematic reviews (2025)Title and abstract screening for literature reviews using large language models: an exploratory study in the biomedical domain (2024)Generative artificial intelligence use in evidence synthesis: A systematic review (2025)The emergence of large language models as tools in literature reviews: a large language model-assisted systematic review (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2016Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews25,980 cited
  • 2005Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews3,362 cited
  • 2021An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews1,149 cited
  • 2004Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy800 cited
  • 2019Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review625 cited
  • 2021Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases504 cited
  • 2009A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard404 cited
  • 2024Can large language models replace humans in systematic reviews? Evaluating GPT ‐4's efficacy in screening and extracting data from peer‐reviewed and grey literature in multiple languages266 cited
  • 2020Error rates of human reviewers during abstract screening in systematic reviews214 cited
  • 2023Automated Paper Screening for Clinical Reviews Using Large Language Models: Data Analysis Study205 cited
  • 1999Estimating Time to Conduct a Meta-analysis From Number of Citations Retrieved163 cited
  • 2018Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy157 cited
  • 2016Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

125 cited
  • 2020Statistical stopping criteria for automated screening in systematic reviews121 cited
  • 2017Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review97 cited
  • 2023A novel application of machine learning and zero-shot classification methods for automated abstract screening in systematic reviews35 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2025How to Write Effective Prompts for Screening Biomedical Literature Using Large Language Models10 cited
    • 2026Evaluation of Large Language Models for Peer Review in Transplantation Research: Algorithm Validation Study7 cited