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
arXiv:2606.16149v5 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Rare disease diagnosis depends on expert reasoning that is scarce and difficult to transfer. Large language models rank the correct disease first i...
By Minh-Ha Nguyen, Erica Gray, Bryce A. Schuler, Kevin W. Byram, Chih-Ting Yang, Fan Ma, Hua Xu, Wu-Chen Su, Chao Yan, Wei-Qi Wei, Adam Wright, Lisa Bastarache, Josh F. Peterson, Lingyao Li, Siyuan Ma, Undiagnosed Diseases Network, Rizwan Hamid, Thomas A. Cassini, Cathy Shyr
The paper investigates how large language models can extract contextualized data from scientific literature. It presents four workflows: expert‑written prompts, self‑generated prompts, autonomous literature discovery, and dataset creation from guidelines. While models perform well with prompts, they struggle with context, hallucinate references, and still need human oversight for final validation.
By Valentin Romanov, Monique Bax, Steven Niederer
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:2509. 23426v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI scientists are emerging computational systems that serve as collaborative partners in discovery.
By Shanghua Gao, Richard Zhu, Pengwei Sui, Zhenglun Kong, Sufian Aldogom, Yepeng Huang, Ayush Noori, Reza Shamji, Krishna Parvataneni, Theodoros Tsiligkaridis, Marinka Zitnik
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