SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Evaluating the OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 Turbo’s performance in extracting information from scientific articles on diabetic retinopathy
2 references·6 citing·27 second hop
Evaluating the OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 Turbo’s performance in extracting information from scientific articles on diabetic retinopathy (2024)Evaluating the OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 Turbo’s p…The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review (2023)The problems with systematic …Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis (2019)Toward systematic review auto…Using full agreement across multiple large language models for title-and-abstract screening in systematic reviews: a proof-of-concept (2026)Using full agreement across m…Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Assisting Systematic Review Process in Health Research: A Systematic Review (2025)Role of Generative Artificial…How to Write Effective Prompts for Screening Biomedical Literature Using Large Language Models (2025)How to Write Effective Prompt…Evaluating the AI Tool “Elicit” as a Semi-Automated Second Reviewer for Data Extraction in Systematic Reviews: A Proof-of-Concept (2025)Evaluating the AI Tool “Elici…Evaluating a Customized Version of ChatGPT for Systematic Review Data Extraction in Health Research: Development and Usability Study (2025)Evaluating a Customized Versi…Topic Modeling as a Tool to Identify Research Diversity: A Study Across Dental Disciplines (2024)Topic Modeling as a Tool to I…Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? (2010)Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches (2015)Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry (2017)Automation of systematic literature reviews: A systematic literature review (2021)A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas (2022)Meta‐analysis and traditional systematic literature reviews—What, why, when, where, and how? (2022)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2019)Systematic review search strategies are poorly reported and not reproducible: a cross-sectional metaresearch study (2023)Detecting jingle and jangle fallacies by identifying consistencies and variabilities in study specifications – a call for research (2024)Sample Sizes for 10 Types of Qualitative Data Analysis: An Integrative Review, Empirical Guidance, and Next Steps (2024)Is there science beyond English? (2007)Publish or perish: Where are we heading? (2014)Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews (2017)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Beyond PICO (2012)PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews (2014)An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews (2021)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2020)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2015)Interrater Reliability in Systematic Review Methodology: Exploring Variation in Coder Decision-Making (2018)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic (2012)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2019Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis635 cited
  • 2023The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review191 cited

Cited by

  • 2025Evaluating the AI Tool “Elicit” as a Semi-Automated Second Reviewer for Data Extraction in Systematic Reviews: A Proof-of-Concept16 cited
  • 2025Evaluating a Customized Version of ChatGPT for Systematic Review Data Extraction in Health Research: Development and Usability Study15 cited
  • 2025Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Assisting Systematic Review Process in Health Research: A Systematic Review15 cited
  • 2025How to Write Effective Prompts for Screening Biomedical Literature Using Large Language Models10 cited
  • 2024Topic Modeling as a Tool to Identify Research Diversity: A Study Across Dental Disciplines6 cited
  • 2026Using full agreement across multiple large language models for title-and-abstract screening in systematic reviews: a proof-of-concept5 cited

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