SciLitBench is a multi-stage benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in systematic literature reviews, covering title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and schema-guided data extraction across 42,981 records and 888 included papers. The study shows that explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria boost title and abstract screening performance by 28.8% and researcher-authored rationales improve full-text screening by 15%. Data extraction performance varies widely, with high accuracy for publication year but low overlap for computational approaches, and even the best models recover only a fraction of annotated evidence and limitations.
By Miguel Zabaleta, Baihan Lin
The paper introduces SRBench, a benchmark dataset comprising 45,064 labeled entries from 32 curated secondary studies, designed to evaluate large language model performance in systematic review screening while addressing class imbalance. It also presents PromptSR, a tool that facilitates prompt experimentation, experiment management, and result analysis for LLM-based screening. A use case demonstrates the practical application of both SRBench and PromptSR.
By Gauransh Kumar, Luciano Marchezan, Guillaume Genois, K\'evin Delcourt, Eugene Syriani
arXiv:2601.16753v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Longitudinal information in radiology reports refers to the sequential tracking of findings across multiple examinations over time, which is...
By Xinyi Wang, Grazziela Figueredo, Ruizhe Li, Xin Chen
arXiv:2608. 16643v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation.
By Yifan Zhang, Rahmatollah Beheshti
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: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
Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation. Error-detection benchmarks are typically constructed by injecting errors into notes, such that each erroneous note has a natural counterpart.
This study benchmarks transformer models for Bangla medical named entity recognition (NER), comparing BanglaBERT, multilingual BERT (mBERT), XLM‑RoBERTa, and GPT‑4o mini under zero‑shot and few‑shot prompting. Across a full test set of 3,179 samples, fine‑tuned XLM‑RoBERTa achieves a new state‑of‑the‑art F1‑score of 0.5959, while BanglaBERT lags with 0.4937, suggesting that domain diversity outweighs language specificity. The analysis shows high performance on Medicine and Specialist entities (F1 > 0.83) but lower accuracy on Symptoms (F1 0.4367), and demonstrates that fine‑tuned transformers outperform prompt‑only approaches by a factor of 3.76.
By Rakib Abdullah, Md. Maruful Islam Maruf
The paper "Medical Causal Hypothesis Verification with Large Language Models" reports a small-scale study evaluating eight LLMs on 17 medical causal hypotheses. The authors introduce an evaluation framework and annotate 1,067 evidence points across six criteria, using nine metrics to assess performance. Results show that while LLMs have strong recall, they frequently fail to provide valid scientific articles, evidence, or reject unsupported hypotheses, revealing a critical limitation for their use in healthcare.
By Safiyyah Ahmed, Abrar Ansari, Md Aminul Islam, Elena Zheleva
The paper presents a pipeline that uses Large Language Models (LLMs) to extract information from 536 peer‑reviewed agent‑based modeling papers for systematic literature reviews (SLRs). GPT‑4.1 achieves about 77.95% paper‑level accuracy, while GPT‑5.0 reaches 81.67%. Field‑level accuracy varies widely, and the study notes that agreement between LLMs can signal output quality, with low agreement indicating hallucinations and high agreement with low accuracy suggesting noise in the human dataset.
By Orhan Yagizer Cinar, Timur Emre Ozkose, Emma Von Hoene, Amira Roess, Taylor Anderson, Hamdi Kavak
The paper investigates evidence generation for biomedical claim verification, evaluating various large language models and retrieval strategies on the CARE-XAI benchmark. It finds that fine‑tuned LLMs excel at producing evidence, while biomedical classifiers still lead in verdict‑only prediction. PubMed retrieval helps on PubMed‑aligned datasets but can mislead on broader public‑health claims, prompting the authors to propose Bio‑GRACE, a diagnostic that normalizes gold references to assess retrieval utility.
By Pritam Deka, Prabhjot Singh
arXiv:2609.38480v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Most clinical benchmarks evaluate language models (LMs) on diagnosis using complete case descriptions. In clinical practice, however, patients presen...
By Xueting Fang, Zehui Li, Yang Yang, Camilla Giovino, Shubh K. Patel, Shailly Prajapati, Vallijah Subasri, Caihua Shan