生成式人工智能在辅助健康研究系统评价过程中的作用:一个系统综述。

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Muhammed Rashid, Cheng Su Yi, Thipsukhon Sathapanasiri, Sariya Udayachalerm, Kansak Boonpattharatthiti, Suppachai Insuk, Sajesh K Veettil, Nai Ming Lai, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Teerapon Dhippayom
{"title":"生成式人工智能在辅助健康研究系统评价过程中的作用:一个系统综述。","authors":"Muhammed Rashid, Cheng Su Yi, Thipsukhon Sathapanasiri, Sariya Udayachalerm, Kansak Boonpattharatthiti, Suppachai Insuk, Sajesh K Veettil, Nai Ming Lai, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Teerapon Dhippayom","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) is widely used in healthcare for various purposes, with generative AI (GAI) increasingly being applied to systematic review (SR) processes. We aimed to summarize the evidence on the performance metrics of GAI in the SR process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global were searched from their inception up to March 2025. Only experimental studies that compared GAI with other GAIs or human reviewers at any stage of the SR were included. Modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 was used to assess the quality of the studies that used GAI in the study selection process. We summarized the findings of the included studies using a narrative approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 7418 records screened, 30 studies were included. These studies used GAI tools such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Microsoft Bing AI. GAI appears to be effective for participant, intervention, comparator, and outcome formulation and data extraction processes, including complex information. However, because of inconsistent reliability, GAI is not recommended for literature search and study selection as it may retrieve nonrelevant articles and yield inconsistent results. There was mixed evidence on whether GAI can be used for risk of bias assessment. Studies using GAI for study selection were generally of high quality based on the modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GAI shows promising support in participant, intervention, comparator, and outcome-based question formulation and data extraction. Although it holds potential to enhance the SR process in healthcare, further practical application and validated evidence are needed before it can be fully integrated into standard workflows.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Assisting Systematic Review Process in Health Research: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Muhammed Rashid, Cheng Su Yi, Thipsukhon Sathapanasiri, Sariya Udayachalerm, Kansak Boonpattharatthiti, Suppachai Insuk, Sajesh K Veettil, Nai Ming Lai, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Teerapon Dhippayom\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) is widely used in healthcare for various purposes, with generative AI (GAI) increasingly being applied to systematic review (SR) processes. We aimed to summarize the evidence on the performance metrics of GAI in the SR process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global were searched from their inception up to March 2025. Only experimental studies that compared GAI with other GAIs or human reviewers at any stage of the SR were included. Modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 was used to assess the quality of the studies that used GAI in the study selection process. We summarized the findings of the included studies using a narrative approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 7418 records screened, 30 studies were included. These studies used GAI tools such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Microsoft Bing AI. GAI appears to be effective for participant, intervention, comparator, and outcome formulation and data extraction processes, including complex information. However, because of inconsistent reliability, GAI is not recommended for literature search and study selection as it may retrieve nonrelevant articles and yield inconsistent results. There was mixed evidence on whether GAI can be used for risk of bias assessment. Studies using GAI for study selection were generally of high quality based on the modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GAI shows promising support in participant, intervention, comparator, and outcome-based question formulation and data extraction. Although it holds potential to enhance the SR process in healthcare, further practical application and validated evidence are needed before it can be fully integrated into standard workflows.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.001\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能(AI)广泛应用于医疗保健领域的各种目的,生成式AI (GAI)越来越多地应用于系统审查(SR)过程。我们的目的是总结在SR过程中GAI的绩效指标的证据。方法:检索PubMed、EMBASE、Scopus、ProQuest dissertation & Theses Global自成立至2025年3月的论文。仅包括将GAI与其他GAI或在SR的任何阶段的人类审稿人进行比较的实验研究。使用修订的诊断准确性研究质量评估版本2来评估在研究选择过程中使用GAI的研究的质量。我们用叙述的方法总结了纳入研究的结果。结果:在筛选的7418份记录中,纳入了30项研究。这些研究使用了人工智能工具,如ChatGPT、Bard和微软必应人工智能。GAI似乎对参与者、干预者、比较者、结果制定和数据提取过程(包括复杂信息)有效。然而,由于可靠性不一致,GAI不推荐用于文献检索和研究选择,因为它可能检索到不相关的文章并产生不一致的结果。关于GAI是否可以用于偏倚风险评估,证据不一。根据修订后的诊断准确性研究质量评估版本2,使用GAI进行研究选择的研究通常具有高质量。结论:GAI在参与者、干预、比较和基于结果的问题制定和数据提取方面显示出有希望的支持。尽管它具有增强医疗保健中的SR流程的潜力,但在将其完全集成到标准工作流程之前,还需要进一步的实际应用和验证证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Assisting Systematic Review Process in Health Research: A Systematic Review.

Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) is widely used in healthcare for various purposes, with generative AI (GAI) increasingly being applied to systematic review (SR) processes. We aimed to summarize the evidence on the performance metrics of GAI in the SR process.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global were searched from their inception up to March 2025. Only experimental studies that compared GAI with other GAIs or human reviewers at any stage of the SR were included. Modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 was used to assess the quality of the studies that used GAI in the study selection process. We summarized the findings of the included studies using a narrative approach.

Results: Out of 7418 records screened, 30 studies were included. These studies used GAI tools such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Microsoft Bing AI. GAI appears to be effective for participant, intervention, comparator, and outcome formulation and data extraction processes, including complex information. However, because of inconsistent reliability, GAI is not recommended for literature search and study selection as it may retrieve nonrelevant articles and yield inconsistent results. There was mixed evidence on whether GAI can be used for risk of bias assessment. Studies using GAI for study selection were generally of high quality based on the modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2.

Conclusions: GAI shows promising support in participant, intervention, comparator, and outcome-based question formulation and data extraction. Although it holds potential to enhance the SR process in healthcare, further practical application and validated evidence are needed before it can be fully integrated into standard workflows.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
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