大型语言模型(ChatGPT)在系统评价数据提取中的关键评估:探索性研究。

IF 2
JMIR AI Pub Date : 2025-09-11 DOI:10.2196/68097
Hesam Mahmoudi, Doris Chang, Hannah Lee, Navid Ghaffarzadegan, Mohammad S Jalali
{"title":"大型语言模型(ChatGPT)在系统评价数据提取中的关键评估:探索性研究。","authors":"Hesam Mahmoudi, Doris Chang, Hannah Lee, Navid Ghaffarzadegan, Mohammad S Jalali","doi":"10.2196/68097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are foundational for synthesizing evidence across diverse fields and are especially important in guiding research and practice in health and biomedical sciences. However, they are labor intensive due to manual data extraction from multiple studies. As large language models (LLMs) gain attention for their potential to automate research tasks and extract basic information, understanding their ability to accurately extract explicit data from academic papers is critical for advancing SLRs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our study aimed to explore the capability of LLMs to extract both explicitly outlined study characteristics and deeper, more contextual information requiring nuanced evaluations, using ChatGPT (GPT-4).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We screened the full text of a sample of COVID-19 modeling studies and analyzed three basic measures of study settings (ie, analysis location, modeling approach, and analyzed interventions) and three complex measures of behavioral components in models (ie, mobility, risk perception, and compliance). To extract data on these measures, two researchers independently extracted 60 data elements using manual coding and compared them with the responses from ChatGPT to 420 queries spanning 7 iterations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT's accuracy improved as prompts were refined, showing improvements of 33% and 23% between the initial and final iterations for extracting study settings and behavioral components, respectively. In the initial prompts, 26 (43.3%) of 60 ChatGPT responses were correct. However, in the final iteration, ChatGPT extracted 43 (71.7%) of the 60 data elements, showing better performance in extracting explicitly stated study settings (28/30, 93.3%) than in extracting subjective behavioral components (15/30, 50%). Nonetheless, the varying accuracy across measures highlighted its limitations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings underscore LLMs' utility in extracting basic as well as explicit data in SLRs by using effective prompts. However, the results reveal significant limitations in handling nuanced, subjective criteria, emphasizing the necessity for human oversight.</p>","PeriodicalId":73551,"journal":{"name":"JMIR AI","volume":"4 ","pages":"e68097"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12425462/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical Assessment of Large Language Models' (ChatGPT) Performance in Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews: Exploratory Study.\",\"authors\":\"Hesam Mahmoudi, Doris Chang, Hannah Lee, Navid Ghaffarzadegan, Mohammad S Jalali\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/68097\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are foundational for synthesizing evidence across diverse fields and are especially important in guiding research and practice in health and biomedical sciences. However, they are labor intensive due to manual data extraction from multiple studies. As large language models (LLMs) gain attention for their potential to automate research tasks and extract basic information, understanding their ability to accurately extract explicit data from academic papers is critical for advancing SLRs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our study aimed to explore the capability of LLMs to extract both explicitly outlined study characteristics and deeper, more contextual information requiring nuanced evaluations, using ChatGPT (GPT-4).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We screened the full text of a sample of COVID-19 modeling studies and analyzed three basic measures of study settings (ie, analysis location, modeling approach, and analyzed interventions) and three complex measures of behavioral components in models (ie, mobility, risk perception, and compliance). To extract data on these measures, two researchers independently extracted 60 data elements using manual coding and compared them with the responses from ChatGPT to 420 queries spanning 7 iterations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT's accuracy improved as prompts were refined, showing improvements of 33% and 23% between the initial and final iterations for extracting study settings and behavioral components, respectively. In the initial prompts, 26 (43.3%) of 60 ChatGPT responses were correct. However, in the final iteration, ChatGPT extracted 43 (71.7%) of the 60 data elements, showing better performance in extracting explicitly stated study settings (28/30, 93.3%) than in extracting subjective behavioral components (15/30, 50%). Nonetheless, the varying accuracy across measures highlighted its limitations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings underscore LLMs' utility in extracting basic as well as explicit data in SLRs by using effective prompts. However, the results reveal significant limitations in handling nuanced, subjective criteria, emphasizing the necessity for human oversight.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR AI\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"e68097\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12425462/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR AI\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/68097\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR AI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/68097","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:系统文献综述(slr)是综合各领域证据的基础,在指导卫生和生物医学科学的研究和实践方面尤为重要。然而,由于需要人工从多个研究中提取数据,这是一项劳动密集型工作。随着大型语言模型(llm)因其自动化研究任务和提取基本信息的潜力而受到关注,了解它们从学术论文中准确提取明确数据的能力对于推进slr至关重要。目的:我们的研究旨在探索法学硕士使用ChatGPT (GPT-4)提取明确概述的研究特征和需要细致评估的更深层次、更上下文信息的能力。方法:我们筛选了一份COVID-19建模研究样本全文,分析了研究设置的三个基本指标(即分析地点、建模方法和分析干预措施)和模型中行为成分的三个复杂指标(即流动性、风险感知和依从性)。为了提取这些度量的数据,两位研究人员使用手动编码独立提取了60个数据元素,并将它们与ChatGPT对跨越7次迭代的420个查询的响应进行了比较。结果:ChatGPT的准确性随着提示的改进而提高,在提取研究设置和行为成分的初始迭代和最终迭代之间分别提高了33%和23%。在最初的提示中,60个ChatGPT回答中有26个(43.3%)是正确的。然而,在最后的迭代中,ChatGPT提取了60个数据元素中的43个(71.7%),在提取明确陈述的研究设置(28/ 30,93.3%)方面的性能优于提取主观行为成分(15/ 30,50%)。尽管如此,不同测量方法准确度的差异凸显了其局限性。结论:我们的研究结果强调了llm通过使用有效提示在单反中提取基本数据和明确数据的效用。然而,结果显示在处理细微的主观标准方面存在重大局限性,强调了人为监督的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Critical Assessment of Large Language Models' (ChatGPT) Performance in Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews: Exploratory Study.

Critical Assessment of Large Language Models' (ChatGPT) Performance in Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews: Exploratory Study.

Critical Assessment of Large Language Models' (ChatGPT) Performance in Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews: Exploratory Study.

Background: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are foundational for synthesizing evidence across diverse fields and are especially important in guiding research and practice in health and biomedical sciences. However, they are labor intensive due to manual data extraction from multiple studies. As large language models (LLMs) gain attention for their potential to automate research tasks and extract basic information, understanding their ability to accurately extract explicit data from academic papers is critical for advancing SLRs.

Objective: Our study aimed to explore the capability of LLMs to extract both explicitly outlined study characteristics and deeper, more contextual information requiring nuanced evaluations, using ChatGPT (GPT-4).

Methods: We screened the full text of a sample of COVID-19 modeling studies and analyzed three basic measures of study settings (ie, analysis location, modeling approach, and analyzed interventions) and three complex measures of behavioral components in models (ie, mobility, risk perception, and compliance). To extract data on these measures, two researchers independently extracted 60 data elements using manual coding and compared them with the responses from ChatGPT to 420 queries spanning 7 iterations.

Results: ChatGPT's accuracy improved as prompts were refined, showing improvements of 33% and 23% between the initial and final iterations for extracting study settings and behavioral components, respectively. In the initial prompts, 26 (43.3%) of 60 ChatGPT responses were correct. However, in the final iteration, ChatGPT extracted 43 (71.7%) of the 60 data elements, showing better performance in extracting explicitly stated study settings (28/30, 93.3%) than in extracting subjective behavioral components (15/30, 50%). Nonetheless, the varying accuracy across measures highlighted its limitations.

Conclusions: Our findings underscore LLMs' utility in extracting basic as well as explicit data in SLRs by using effective prompts. However, the results reveal significant limitations in handling nuanced, subjective criteria, emphasizing the necessity for human oversight.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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