Transforming evidence synthesis: A systematic review of the evolution of automated meta-analysis in the age of AI.

IF 6.1 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Research Synthesis Methods Pub Date : 2026-05-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-09 DOI:10.1017/rsm.2025.10065
Lingbo Li, Anuradha Mathrani, Teo Susnjak
{"title":"Transforming evidence synthesis: A systematic review of the evolution of automated meta-analysis in the age of AI.","authors":"Lingbo Li, Anuradha Mathrani, Teo Susnjak","doi":"10.1017/rsm.2025.10065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Exponential growth in scientific literature has heightened the demand for efficient evidence-based synthesis, driving the rise of the field of automated meta-analysis (AMA) powered by natural language processing and machine learning. This PRISMA systematic review introduces a structured framework for assessing the current state of AMA, based on screening 13,216 papers (2006-2024) and analyzing 61 studies across diverse domains. Findings reveal a predominant focus on automating data processing (52.5%), such as extraction and statistical modeling, while only 16.4% address advanced synthesis stages. Just one study (approximately 2%) explored preliminary full-process automation, highlighting a critical gap that limits AMA's capacity for comprehensive synthesis. Despite recent breakthroughs in large language models and advanced AI, their integration into statistical modeling and higher-order synthesis, such as heterogeneity assessment and bias evaluation, remains underdeveloped. This has constrained AMA's potential for fully autonomous meta-analysis (MA). From our dataset spanning medical (67.2%) and non-medical (32.8%) applications, we found that AMA has exhibited distinct implementation patterns and varying degrees of effectiveness in actually improving efficiency, scalability, and reproducibility. While automation has enhanced specific meta-analytic tasks, achieving seamless, end-to-end automation remains an open challenge. As AI systems advance in reasoning and contextual understanding, addressing these gaps is now imperative. Future efforts must focus on bridging automation across all MA stages, refining interpretability, and ensuring methodological robustness to fully realize AMA's potential for scalable, domain-agnostic synthesis.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"17 3","pages":"403-450"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13126215/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2025.10065","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Exponential growth in scientific literature has heightened the demand for efficient evidence-based synthesis, driving the rise of the field of automated meta-analysis (AMA) powered by natural language processing and machine learning. This PRISMA systematic review introduces a structured framework for assessing the current state of AMA, based on screening 13,216 papers (2006-2024) and analyzing 61 studies across diverse domains. Findings reveal a predominant focus on automating data processing (52.5%), such as extraction and statistical modeling, while only 16.4% address advanced synthesis stages. Just one study (approximately 2%) explored preliminary full-process automation, highlighting a critical gap that limits AMA's capacity for comprehensive synthesis. Despite recent breakthroughs in large language models and advanced AI, their integration into statistical modeling and higher-order synthesis, such as heterogeneity assessment and bias evaluation, remains underdeveloped. This has constrained AMA's potential for fully autonomous meta-analysis (MA). From our dataset spanning medical (67.2%) and non-medical (32.8%) applications, we found that AMA has exhibited distinct implementation patterns and varying degrees of effectiveness in actually improving efficiency, scalability, and reproducibility. While automation has enhanced specific meta-analytic tasks, achieving seamless, end-to-end automation remains an open challenge. As AI systems advance in reasoning and contextual understanding, addressing these gaps is now imperative. Future efforts must focus on bridging automation across all MA stages, refining interpretability, and ensuring methodological robustness to fully realize AMA's potential for scalable, domain-agnostic synthesis.

转化证据合成:人工智能时代自动元分析演变的系统回顾。
科学文献的指数级增长提高了对高效循证合成的需求,推动了由自然语言处理和机器学习驱动的自动元分析(AMA)领域的兴起。本PRISMA系统综述介绍了一个评估AMA现状的结构化框架,该框架基于对13216篇论文(2006-2024)的筛选,并分析了跨不同领域的61项研究。调查结果显示,主要关注自动化数据处理(52.5%),如提取和统计建模,而只有16.4%的人关注高级合成阶段。只有一项研究(约2%)探索了初步的全流程自动化,突出了限制AMA综合合成能力的关键差距。尽管最近在大型语言模型和先进的人工智能方面取得了突破,但它们与统计建模和高阶综合(如异质性评估和偏差评估)的整合仍然不发达。这限制了AMA进行完全自主meta分析(MA)的潜力。从涵盖医疗(67.2%)和非医疗(32.8%)应用程序的数据集中,我们发现AMA在实际提高效率、可扩展性和可再现性方面表现出不同的实现模式和不同程度的有效性。虽然自动化增强了特定的元分析任务,但实现无缝的端到端自动化仍然是一个开放的挑战。随着人工智能系统在推理和上下文理解方面的进步,解决这些差距现在势在必行。未来的努力必须集中在跨越所有MA阶段的自动化,精炼可解释性,并确保方法的健壮性,以充分实现AMA在可扩展的、领域不可知的综合方面的潜力。
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