arXiv AI By Orhan Yagizer Cinar, Timur Emre Ozkose, Emma Von Hoene, Amira Roess, Taylor Anderson, Hamdi Kavak

Leveraging Large Language Models for Systematic Literature Review of Disease Spread Models

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Jun 8

Evaluating AI-based Scientific Knowledge Synthesis with Epidemiological Systematic Reviews

arXiv:2603. 22327v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a demanding and high-stakes form of scientific knowledge synthesis that remains underspecified as an evaluation setting for large language models (LLMs).

By Shreyansh Padarha, Ryan Othniel Kearns, Tristan Naidoo, Lingyi Yang, {\L}ukasz Borchmann, Piotr B{\L}aszczyk, Christian Morgenstern, Ruth McCabe, Sangeeta Bhatia, Philip H. Torr, Jakob Foerster, Scott A. Hale, Thomas Rawson, Anne Cori, Elizaveta Semenova, Adam Mahdi
arXiv AI
Sep 10

SciLitBench: Benchmark and Design Principles for LLM-Powered Systematic Literature Reviews

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
arXiv AI
Jun 30

meta-pipe: An LLM-agent pipeline for end-to-end automated systematic review and meta-analysis

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
arXiv AI
Jun 30

LUMEN: Cost-Transparent Multi-Agent Pipeline for Automated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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)