Evaluates improved screening performance in systematic reviews using automated prompt optimization.
BACKGROUND: Title and abstract screening is a labor-intensive stage of systematic reviews. Large language models (LLMs) can automate this process, but performance depends heavily on prompt design and model selection, which is typically manual and time-consuming. Our objective was to evaluate whether automated, reflection-driven prompt optimization improves LLM performance during title and abstract screening. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: REFLECTIVE-TIAB uses the GEPA reflective prompt optimizer to improve prompts under an asymmetric loss penalizing false negatives. Nine LLMs screened 8,520 de-duplicated records from a COPD exacerbation predictor search. A 100-abstract gold standard was constructed from inter-model disagreements and was expert-labeled. The prompt was optimized on Llama 3.3 70B via DSPy/GEPA and evaluated across all nine models. RESULTS: Optimization improved recall across all LLMs (+3.7% to +37.1%). Gemini 3 Flash Preview achieved the highest performance (91% accuracy, F1 81.6%) while costing 25-fold less per abstract than GPT-5.2, which ranked among the lowest-performing models. A prompt optimized on a single open-source model generalized to all nine without retraining. Total optimization cost was $6.36. CONCLUSIONS: REFLECTIVE-TIAB provides automated, model-transferable prompt optimization for literature screening at negligible cost. Model price did not predict screening performance. The framework could substantially reduce screening workload while preserving comprehensiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Józwiák et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: