arXiv:2606. 17588v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Several studies have examined the use of large language models (LLMs) for title-abstract screening in systematic reviews (SRs), reporting mixed accuracy.
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.
Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, while capable of summarizing text, there is no guarantee they can meet the rigour, reliability, and transparency that SLRs require.
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.
arXiv:2607. 24991v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs).
arXiv:2608.20385v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Systematic reviews rely on quality appraisal of included studies, a process that is time-consuming and sensitive to ambiguity in checklist criteria. Al...
arXiv:2501. 14940v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values is essential for their safe deployment and widespread adoption.
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.