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:2608.28596v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly embedded in scientific workflows for literature analysis, drafting, and review. Existing systems adv...
By Nidhi Jha, Siddharth Chaudhary, Ajinkya Kulkarni
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:2607. 15247v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evidence synthesis is crucial for turning primary research into reliable knowledge for science, medicine, education, and policy.
By Moein Taherinezhad, Sebastian Maier, Gerardo Vitagliano, Francesco Pierri, Stefan Feuerriegel
The paper introduces CoSLR, a Human‑AI collaborative system for systematic literature reviews that incorporates mandatory human checkpoints within a three‑phase pipeline using large language models and Retrieval‑Augmented Generation. In a survey of 63 participants, 42.9 % rated the system’s usability highly, yet 34.9 % indicated they would trust AI‑generated summaries without further human verification after brief interaction. The study highlights that effective human oversight in AI‑assisted literature reviews depends on users’ willingness to engage with the checkpoints, underscoring a calibration issue that interface design must directly address.
By MD Aidul Islam, Malik Abdul Sami, Muhammad Waseem, Zeeshan Rasheed, Kai-kristian Kemell, Zheying Zhang, Pekka Abrahamsson
The paper introduces PRISMA-LLM, a reporting framework for AI-assisted systematic reviews. It is based on an analysis of 888 review-automation papers, showing a shift toward LLM- and software-driven workflows and inconsistent reporting of evaluation and limitations. The framework separates implementation details from consequence-sensitive evaluation and limitation reporting.
By Miguel Zabaleta, Baihan Lin