PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 18, 2025Research Synthesis Methods10 citationsOpen Access

Automating the data extraction process for systematic reviews using GPT-4o and o3

View Full Paper
YKYuki KataokaTTT. TakayamaKYKenichi Yoshimura

Key Points

  • The system achieved 96.3% accuracy in automated data extraction for string variables, indicating strong performance.
  • Evaluations show the system attained 74.9% sensitivity and 76.7% specificity in the updated-search dataset.
  • Developed using a dataset of 290 randomized controlled trials, this approach highlights advancements in data extraction efficiency.
  • Further evaluations across diverse contexts are needed to assess the broader applicability of this automated extraction method.

Abstract

Abstract Large language models have shown promise for automating data extraction (DE) in systematic reviews (SRs), but most existing approaches require manual interaction. We developed an open-source system using GPT-4o to automatically extract data with no human intervention during the extraction process. We developed the system on a dataset of 290 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from a published SR about cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. We evaluated the system on two other datasets: 5 RCTs from an updated search for the same review and 10 RCTs used in a separate published study that had also evaluated automated DE. We developed the best approach across all variables in the development dataset using GPT-4o. The performance in the updated-search dataset using o3 was 74.9% sensitivity, 76.7% specificity, 75.7 precision, 93.5% variable detection comprehensiveness, and 75.3% accuracy. In both datasets, accuracy was higher for string variables (e.g., country, study design, drug names, and outcome definitions) compared with numeric variables. In the third external validation dataset, GPT-4o showed a lower performance with a mean accuracy of 84.4% compared with the previous study. However, by adjusting our DE method, while maintaining the same prompting technique, we achieved a mean accuracy of 96.3%, which was comparable to the previous manual extraction study. Our system shows potential for assisting the DE of string variables alongside a human reviewer. However, it cannot yet replace humans for numeric DE. Further evaluation across diverse review contexts is needed to establish broader applicability.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kataoka et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d462ca31b076d99fa6225fhttps://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2025.10030
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper