Yuki Kataoka, Tomohiro Takayama, Keisuke Yoshimura, Ryuhei So, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Yosuke Yamagishi, Shiro Takagi, Yuki Furukawa, Masatsugu Sakata, Đorđe Bašić, Andrea Cipriani, Pim Cuijpers, Eirini Karyotaki, Mathias Harrer, Stefan Leucht, Ava Homiar, Edoardo G Ostinelli, Clara Miguel, Alessandro Rodolico, Toshi A Furukawa
{"title":"Automating the data extraction process for systematic reviews using GPT-4o and o3.","authors":"Yuki Kataoka, Tomohiro Takayama, Keisuke Yoshimura, Ryuhei So, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Yosuke Yamagishi, Shiro Takagi, Yuki Furukawa, Masatsugu Sakata, Đorđe Bašić, Andrea Cipriani, Pim Cuijpers, Eirini Karyotaki, Mathias Harrer, Stefan Leucht, Ava Homiar, Edoardo G Ostinelli, Clara Miguel, Alessandro Rodolico, Toshi A Furukawa","doi":"10.1017/rsm.2025.10030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"17 1","pages":"42-62"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12823200/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2025.10030","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
期刊介绍:
Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines.
Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines.
By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.