Evaluating prompting strategies and large language models in systematic literature review screening: Relevance and task-stage classification.

IF 8 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Binglan Han, Anuradha Mathrani, Vajisha Udayangi Wanniarachchi, Teo Susnjak
{"title":"Evaluating prompting strategies and large language models in systematic literature review screening: Relevance and task-stage classification.","authors":"Binglan Han, Anuradha Mathrani, Vajisha Udayangi Wanniarachchi, Teo Susnjak","doi":"10.1017/rsm.2026.10110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study quantifies how prompting strategies interact with large language models (LLMs) to automate the screening stage of systematic literature reviews (SLRs). We evaluate six LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, DeepSeek-Chat-V3, Gemini-2.5-Flash, Claude-3.5-Haiku, and Llama-4-Maverick) under five prompt types (zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought [CoT], CoT-few-shot, and self-reflection) across relevance classification and six Level-2 tasks, using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1. Results show pronounced model-prompt interaction effects within this SLR-automation corpus: zero-shot maximizes recall for high-sensitivity relevance screening; CoT-few-shot yields stronger precision and F1; and self-reflection underperforms due to over-inclusivity and instability across models. GPT-4o and DeepSeek provide robust overall performance, while GPT-4o-mini performs competitively at a substantially lower dollar cost. A cost-performance analysis for relevance classification (per 1,000 abstracts) reveals large absolute differences among model-prompt pairings; GPT-4o-Mini remains low-cost across prompts, and structured prompts (CoT/CoT-few-shot) on GPT-4o-Mini offer attractive F1 at a small incremental cost. The cost-performance analysis also suggests that future screening workflows could incorporate staged, cost-aware procedures: (1) using lower-cost, high-recall configurations for initial screening and (2) reserving higher-cost or more precision-oriented configurations for later triage or uncertain records. These findings highlight LLMs' uneven but promising potential to support screening within corpora similar to the SLR-automation corpus examined in this study. Further validation is needed before generalising these results to broader systematic review screening tasks. By systematically analyzing prompt-model interactions, we provide a comparative benchmark and practical guidance for task-adaptive LLM deployment.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":" ","pages":"1-40"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-19","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.2026.10110","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

This study quantifies how prompting strategies interact with large language models (LLMs) to automate the screening stage of systematic literature reviews (SLRs). We evaluate six LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, DeepSeek-Chat-V3, Gemini-2.5-Flash, Claude-3.5-Haiku, and Llama-4-Maverick) under five prompt types (zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought [CoT], CoT-few-shot, and self-reflection) across relevance classification and six Level-2 tasks, using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1. Results show pronounced model-prompt interaction effects within this SLR-automation corpus: zero-shot maximizes recall for high-sensitivity relevance screening; CoT-few-shot yields stronger precision and F1; and self-reflection underperforms due to over-inclusivity and instability across models. GPT-4o and DeepSeek provide robust overall performance, while GPT-4o-mini performs competitively at a substantially lower dollar cost. A cost-performance analysis for relevance classification (per 1,000 abstracts) reveals large absolute differences among model-prompt pairings; GPT-4o-Mini remains low-cost across prompts, and structured prompts (CoT/CoT-few-shot) on GPT-4o-Mini offer attractive F1 at a small incremental cost. The cost-performance analysis also suggests that future screening workflows could incorporate staged, cost-aware procedures: (1) using lower-cost, high-recall configurations for initial screening and (2) reserving higher-cost or more precision-oriented configurations for later triage or uncertain records. These findings highlight LLMs' uneven but promising potential to support screening within corpora similar to the SLR-automation corpus examined in this study. Further validation is needed before generalising these results to broader systematic review screening tasks. By systematically analyzing prompt-model interactions, we provide a comparative benchmark and practical guidance for task-adaptive LLM deployment.

评价系统性文献综述筛选中的提示策略和大语言模型:相关性和任务阶段分类。
本研究量化了提示策略如何与大型语言模型(llm)相互作用,以自动化系统文献综述(slr)的筛选阶段。我们评估了六个llm (gpt - 40, gpt - 40 -mini, DeepSeek-Chat-V3, Gemini-2.5-Flash, Claude-3.5-Haiku和Llama-4-Maverick)在五种提示类型(零射击,少射击,思维链[CoT], CoT-few-shot和自我反思)下的相关性分类和六个二级任务,使用准确性,精度,查全率和F1。结果显示,在这个单反自动化语料库中,显著的模型提示交互效应:零射击最大化了高灵敏度相关性筛选的召回率;少射精度高,F1值高;由于模型的过度包容性和不稳定性,自我反思表现不佳。gpt - 40和DeepSeek提供了强大的整体性能,而gpt - 40 -mini则以更低的成本具有竞争力。相关性分类的性价比分析(每1000篇摘要)揭示了模型提示配对之间的巨大绝对差异;gpt - 40 - mini在所有提示器中保持低成本,而gpt - 40 - mini上的结构化提示(CoT/CoT-few-shot)以较小的增量成本提供了有吸引力的F1。性价比分析还表明,未来的筛选工作流程可以包括分阶段的、成本意识的流程:(1)使用低成本、高召回率的配置进行初始筛选;(2)保留高成本或更精确的配置,以供以后的分类或不确定的记录使用。这些发现突出了llm在支持与本研究中检测的slr自动化语料库相似的语料库内筛选方面的不均衡但有希望的潜力。在将这些结果推广到更广泛的系统评价筛选任务之前,需要进一步验证。通过系统地分析提示模型交互,我们为任务自适应LLM部署提供了比较基准和实践指导。
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