arXiv:2606. 28363v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Objective: To describe the architecture and design rationale of meta-pipe, an open-source large language model (LLM)-agent pipeline that integrates the complete systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) workflow -- from literature search through statistical analysis, manuscript generation, and quality assurance -- with mandatory human oversight at critical decision points.
By Hsieh-Ting Lin, Jiunn-Tyng Yeh
Autonomous scientific research agents are increasingly applied to end-to-end scientific workflows, including literature review, data analysis, experimentation, and report generation. However, open-end...
arXiv:2606. 28362v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) remain the gold standard for evidence synthesis, yet completing one typically requires 67 weeks and substantial expert effort.
By Yen-Hsun Huang (Department of Education, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan), Yu-Shiou Lin (Department of Psychiatry, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan)
arXiv:2608.31076v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Autonomous scientific research agents are increasingly applied to end-to-end scientific workflows, including literature review, data analysis, experi...
By Xuehai Wang, Haowei Qin, Tongxin Liu, Junkai Li, Buqiang Xu, Jintian Zhang, Yijun Chen, Zirui Xue, Shumin Deng
arXiv:2606. 02403v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Systematic reviews rely on forest plots to synthesise quantitative evidence across biomedical studies, but generating them remains a fragmented and labour-intensive process.
By Massimiliano Pronesti, Angelo Miculescu, Mohsin Kapdi, Paul Flanagan, Ois\'in Redmond, Joao Bettencourt-Silva, Gurdeep Mannu, Spiros Denaxas, Rui Bebiano Da Providencia E Costa, Anya Belz, Yufang Hou
arXiv:2609.21859v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Nearly 90% of drugs entering clinical development ultimately fail, despite billions of dollars in investment. Pharmaceutical companies therefore rely o...
By Jiacheng Lin, Zifeng Wang, Zheng Chen, Erick Scott, Ziwei Yang, Fanyang Yu, Sheng Zhong, Jimeng Sun
arXiv:2608.20488v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: AI tools increasingly support tasks across the scientific research cycle, from experiment design and manuscript preparation to peer review. At the same...
By Anirudh Sundar, Min Chen, Divya Tadimeti, Gemma Zhang, Alice Li, Nigel Boachie Kumankumah, Pavan Uttej Ravva, Sadid Hasan, Somya Chatterjee, Pruthvi Prakash Navada, Xiao Wang, Yue Kang, Sulaiman Vesal, Larry Heck
arXiv:2607. 16989v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Introduction.
By Mohammad Arvan, Amber E. Osterholt, Bailee Rue, Yuvaneswaren Ramakrishnan Sureshbabu, Krishna Riteshkumar Patel, Rebecca T. Feinstein, Bethany C. Bray, Niranjan S. Karnik
The paper introduces CLEAR, an agentic framework designed to improve the reliability of large language models (LLMs) in medical contexts by adjudicating evidence from multiple sources. CLEAR generates candidate answers from three distinct pathways—parametric knowledge, locally curated corpora, and dynamically retrieved evidence—and then uses an aggregation verifier to evaluate agreement and conflict among these sources. An adjudication module decides whether to preserve or revise conclusions, employing override-guard and challenge-audit mechanisms, and initiates targeted follow-up searches when conflicts remain unresolved.
By Shuai Wang, Yize Zhao, Qingyu Chen
arXiv:2511. 19735v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)have been the cornerstone of clinical evidence; however, their cost, duration, and restrictive eligibility criteria limit power and external validity.
By Shu Yang, Margaret Gamalo, Haoda Fu
The paper evaluates browser-based large language models (LLMs) for extracting detailed, contextualized data from scientific papers. It presents four workflows: (1) expert-curated prompts yield good extraction but struggle with nuance; (2) LLMs can generate effective prompts from simple instructions; (3) autonomous literature discovery is challenging, with missing or hallucinated references; (4) LLMs can build new datasets from guidelines that align closely with human experts, yet still need human oversight. The study outlines a practical, auditable workflow where experts set standards, models cross-check extractions, and researchers resolve disputes, enabling scalable scientific data curation.
arXiv:2603. 05308v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Assessing whether an article supports an assertion is essential for hallucination detection and claim verification.
By Qiao Jin, Yin Fang, Lauren He, Yifan Yang, Guangzhi Xiong, Zhizheng Wang, Nicholas Wan, Joey Chan, Donald C. Comeau, Robert Leaman, Charalampos S. Floudas, Aidong Zhang, Michael F. Chiang, Yifan Peng, Zhiyong Lu