MechaScreener: Large language model-based automated screening for systematic reviews and research.

IF 8 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Connor Forbes, Matt Carter, Carly Hudson, Paul Glasziou, Justin Clark
{"title":"MechaScreener: Large language model-based automated screening for systematic reviews and research.","authors":"Connor Forbes, Matt Carter, Carly Hudson, Paul Glasziou, Justin Clark","doi":"10.1017/rsm.2026.10124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Systematic reviews are the gold standard for evidence synthesis, but the manual title and abstract screening of thousands of references creates a severe bottleneck. Existing automated tools have historically struggled to achieve the near-perfect recall (sensitivity) required for reliable reviews. We developed MechaScreener as a 'zero-shot' automated screening tool that utilises a large language model to rank article relevance. The tool requires no initial training data or manual pre-screening, as MechaScreener directly applies user-provided question elements (PICO) or inclusion/exclusion criteria to assign an ordinal relevance score (1-5) to each reference. We evaluated the tool in two phases: a development phase using five reference libraries to optimise prompts, and an independent evaluation phase using 10 diverse Cochrane review libraries (comprising both randomised controlled trials [RCTs] and non-RCTs) containing over 58,000 references. In the evaluation dataset, MechaScreener achieved a perfect recall of 1.00 (100%) in all 10 reviews, ensuring that no relevant articles were missed (pooled record-level 95% CI: 0.98-1.00). Concurrently, it achieved an overall macro-average specificity of 0.61 (61%, cluster bootstrap 95% CI: 0.46-0.75; pooled record-level specificity 0.59, 95% CI: 0.59-0.60). Specificity varied from 0.21 in broad public health topics to 0.91 in precise pharmacological interventions, reflecting the tool's built-in conservatism when evaluating ambiguous abstracts. By safely eliminating over 60% of irrelevant literature during the initial screening phase without compromising recall, MechaScreener functions as a highly reliable but low-effort 'first-pass' filter, allowing researchers to substantially reduce manual workloads and reallocate resources towards full-text review and data extraction.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2026.10124","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Systematic reviews are the gold standard for evidence synthesis, but the manual title and abstract screening of thousands of references creates a severe bottleneck. Existing automated tools have historically struggled to achieve the near-perfect recall (sensitivity) required for reliable reviews. We developed MechaScreener as a 'zero-shot' automated screening tool that utilises a large language model to rank article relevance. The tool requires no initial training data or manual pre-screening, as MechaScreener directly applies user-provided question elements (PICO) or inclusion/exclusion criteria to assign an ordinal relevance score (1-5) to each reference. We evaluated the tool in two phases: a development phase using five reference libraries to optimise prompts, and an independent evaluation phase using 10 diverse Cochrane review libraries (comprising both randomised controlled trials [RCTs] and non-RCTs) containing over 58,000 references. In the evaluation dataset, MechaScreener achieved a perfect recall of 1.00 (100%) in all 10 reviews, ensuring that no relevant articles were missed (pooled record-level 95% CI: 0.98-1.00). Concurrently, it achieved an overall macro-average specificity of 0.61 (61%, cluster bootstrap 95% CI: 0.46-0.75; pooled record-level specificity 0.59, 95% CI: 0.59-0.60). Specificity varied from 0.21 in broad public health topics to 0.91 in precise pharmacological interventions, reflecting the tool's built-in conservatism when evaluating ambiguous abstracts. By safely eliminating over 60% of irrelevant literature during the initial screening phase without compromising recall, MechaScreener functions as a highly reliable but low-effort 'first-pass' filter, allowing researchers to substantially reduce manual workloads and reallocate resources towards full-text review and data extraction.

MechaScreener:用于系统评论和研究的基于大型语言模型的自动筛选。
系统评论是证据合成的黄金标准,但手工标题和对数千篇参考文献的摘要筛选造成了严重的瓶颈。现有的自动化工具一直在努力实现可靠审查所需的近乎完美的召回(灵敏度)。我们开发了MechaScreener作为一个“零概率”自动筛选工具,它利用一个大的语言模型来对文章的相关性进行排名。该工具不需要初始训练数据或人工预筛选,因为MechaScreener直接应用用户提供的问题元素(PICO)或纳入/排除标准来为每个参考分配顺序相关性评分(1-5)。我们分两个阶段对该工具进行评估:开发阶段使用5个参考文献库来优化提示,独立评估阶段使用10个不同的Cochrane综述库(包括随机对照试验[rct]和非rct),包含58000多篇参考文献。在评估数据集中,MechaScreener在所有10篇综述中实现了1.00(100%)的完美召回,确保没有遗漏相关文章(汇总记录水平95% CI: 0.98-1.00)。同时,总体宏观平均特异性为0.61(61%,集群引导95% CI: 0.46-0.75;合并记录水平特异性0.59,95% CI: 0.59-0.60)。特异性从广泛的公共卫生主题的0.21到精确的药理学干预的0.91不等,反映了该工具在评估模糊摘要时的固有保守性。通过在初始筛选阶段安全地消除超过60%的不相关文献而不影响召回,MechaScreener作为一个高度可靠但低工作量的“第一次通过”过滤器,允许研究人员大大减少人工工作量,并将资源重新分配给全文审查和数据提取。
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