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

IF 8 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Research Synthesis Methods Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-09-17 DOI:10.1017/rsm.2025.10030
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.

使用gpt - 40和o3自动化系统审查的数据提取过程。
大型语言模型已经显示出在系统审查(SRs)中自动化数据提取(DE)的希望,但是大多数现有的方法需要人工交互。我们使用gpt - 40开发了一个开源系统,在提取过程中无需人工干预即可自动提取数据。我们在290个随机对照试验(rct)的数据集上开发了这个系统,这些试验来自一篇发表的关于失眠认知行为疗法的研究报告。我们在另外两个数据集上评估了该系统:来自同一综述的更新搜索的5个随机对照试验,以及来自另一项独立发表的研究的10个随机对照试验,该研究也评估了自动化DE。我们使用gpt - 40开发了跨越开发数据集中所有变量的最佳方法。使用o3的更新搜索数据集的性能为灵敏度74.9%,特异性76.7%,精度75.7,变量检测全面性93.5%,准确性75.3%。在这两个数据集中,与数字变量相比,字符串变量(如国家、研究设计、药物名称和结果定义)的准确性更高。在第三个外部验证数据集中,gpt - 40表现出较低的性能,平均准确率为84.4%。然而,通过调整我们的DE方法,在保持相同提示技术的情况下,我们获得了96.3%的平均准确率,与之前的人工提取研究相当。我们的系统显示了协助字符串变量DE和人工审阅的潜力。然而,它还不能取代人类的数值DE。需要在不同的审查背景下进行进一步的评估,以建立更广泛的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书