Evaluates an AI tool's effectiveness for literature reviews in biomarker research, indicating improved accuracy and efficiency.
Aim Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools utilizing large language models (LLMs) can accelerate scientific literature reviews by automating title, abstract and full-text based screenings of relevant patient populations and biomarkers. We developed an AI-based tool to automate and improve full-text screening performance using LLMs to accurately identify relevant publications that meet complex criteria. Methods We conducted a literature review utilizing the PICO framework to define our inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on biomarkers in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). An AI-based full-text screening tool was created to process 5405 selected publications, combining multi-level and task-oriented retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and agent-based methods establishing ground truth standards to evaluate performance metrics both for the tool and human reviewers. Intra-LLM reliability was assessed by rerunning screenings on a batch of publications. Results Amongst the public and private domain models, LLaMA 3.3 70B, was selected for its superior accuracy (82%), precision (71%), and recall (100%) in screening 49 manuscripts by LLMs. During the training phase based on several hundred manuscripts, performance metrics significantly improved. Validation results showed a sensitivity of 91.4%, specificity of 53.2%, a false positive rate of 46.8%, and a false negative rate of 8.6%. The LLM outperformed human reviewers in F1 score and interrater reliability, achieving 100% consistency across multiple runs, with each run consisting of multiple LLMs on 1000 documents. Conclusion Our study demonstrated that AI tool can reduce labor-intensive efforts while maintaining accuracy in literature reviews, with greater inter-rater agreement compared to human reviewers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ye et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: