The Promise and Challenges of Using LLMs to Accelerate the Screening Process of Systematic Reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15667v4
• Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 11:28:50 GMT
• Title: The Promise and Challenges of Using LLMs to Accelerate the Screening Process of Systematic Reviews
• Authors: Aleksi Huotala, Miikka Kuutila, Paul Ralph, Mika Mäntylä,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) can accelerate title-abstract screening by simplifying abstracts for human screeners. We performed an experiment where humans screened titles and abstracts for 20 papers with both original and simplified abstracts from a prior Systematic Review. We also studied if different prompting techniques (Zero-shot (ZS), One-shot (OS), Few-shot (FS), and Few-shot with Chain-of-Thought (FS-CoT)) improve the screening performance of LLMs.
• Score: 7.030989629685138
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Systematic review (SR) is a popular research method in software engineering (SE). However, conducting an SR takes an average of 67 weeks. Thus, automating any step of the SR process could reduce the effort associated with SRs. Our objective is to investigate if Large Language Models (LLMs) can accelerate title-abstract screening by simplifying abstracts for human screeners, and automating title-abstract screening. We performed an experiment where humans screened titles and abstracts for 20 papers with both original and simplified abstracts from a prior SR. The experiment with human screeners was reproduced with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 LLMs to perform the same screening tasks. We also studied if different prompting techniques (Zero-shot (ZS), One-shot (OS), Few-shot (FS), and Few-shot with Chain-of-Thought (FS-CoT)) improve the screening performance of LLMs. Lastly, we studied if redesigning the prompt used in the LLM reproduction of screening leads to improved performance. Text simplification did not increase the screeners' screening performance, but reduced the time used in screening. Screeners' scientific literacy skills and researcher status predict screening performance. Some LLM and prompt combinations perform as well as human screeners in the screening tasks. Our results indicate that the GPT-4 LLM is better than its predecessor, GPT-3.5. Additionally, Few-shot and One-shot prompting outperforms Zero-shot prompting. Using LLMs for text simplification in the screening process does not significantly improve human performance. Using LLMs to automate title-abstract screening seems promising, but current LLMs are not significantly more accurate than human screeners. To recommend the use of LLMs in the screening process of SRs, more research is needed. We recommend future SR studies publish replication packages with screening data to enable more conclusive experimenting with LLM screening.

Related papers

• AiReview: An Open Platform for Accelerating Systematic Reviews with LLMs [43.1999161587789]
  AiReview is a novel platform for LLM-assisted systematic review creation. It is the first of its kind to bridge the gap between cutting-edge LLM-assisted screening methods and those that create medical systematic reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T14:55:43Z)
• Redefining Simplicity: Benchmarking Large Language Models from Lexical to Document Simplification [21.727596753351072]
  Text simplification (TS) refers to the process of reducing the complexity of a text while retaining its original meaning and key information. Existing work only shows that large language models (LLMs) have outperformed supervised non-LLM-based methods on sentence simplification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T10:38:22Z)
• The Alternative Annotator Test for LLM-as-a-Judge: How to Statistically Justify Replacing Human Annotators with LLMs [21.97227334180969]
  "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm employs Large Language Models as annotators and evaluators in tasks traditionally performed by humans. Despite their role in shaping study results and insights, there is no standard or rigorous procedure to determine whether LLMs can replace human annotators. We propose a novel statistical procedure -- the Alternative Annotator Test (alt-test) -- that requires only a modest subset of annotated examples to justify using LLM annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-19T07:09:11Z)
• Re-Ranking Step by Step: Investigating Pre-Filtering for Re-Ranking with Large Language Models [5.0490573482829335]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been revolutionizing a myriad of natural language processing tasks with their diverse zero-shot capabilities. This paper investigates the use of a pre-filtering step before passage re-ranking in information retrieval (IR) Our experiments show that this pre-filtering then allows the LLM to perform significantly better at the re-ranking task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T20:12:24Z)
• RePrompt: Planning by Automatic Prompt Engineering for Large Language Models Agents [27.807695570974644]
  We propose a novel method, textscRePrompt, which does agradient descent"-like approach to optimize the step-by-step instructions in the prompts given to LLM agents. By leveraging intermediate feedback, textscRePrompt can optimize the prompt without the need for a final solution checker.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T01:23:11Z)
• Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussions [77.66677127535222]
  Auto-Arena is an innovative framework that automates the entire evaluation process using LLM-powered agents. In our experiments, Auto-Arena shows a 92.14% correlation with human preferences, surpassing all previous expert-annotated benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T17:19:19Z)
• SLMRec: Empowering Small Language Models for Sequential Recommendation [38.51895517016953]
  Sequential Recommendation task involves predicting the next item a user is likely to interact with, given their past interactions. Recent research demonstrates the great impact of LLMs on sequential recommendation systems. Due to the huge size of LLMs, it is inefficient and impractical to apply a LLM-based model in real-world platforms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T07:12:06Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• Benchmarking LLMs on the Semantic Overlap Summarization Task [9.656095701778975]
  This paper comprehensively evaluates Large Language Models (LLMs) on the Semantic Overlap Summarization (SOS) task. We report well-established metrics like ROUGE, BERTscore, and SEM-F1$ on two different datasets of alternative narratives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T20:33:50Z)
• OPDAI at SemEval-2024 Task 6: Small LLMs can Accelerate Hallucination Detection with Weakly Supervised Data [1.3981625092173873]
  This paper describes a unified system for hallucination detection of LLMs. It wins the second prize in the model-agnostic track of the SemEval-2024 Task 6.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:01:39Z)
• LLatrieval: LLM-Verified Retrieval for Verifiable Generation [67.93134176912477]
  Verifiable generation aims to let the large language model (LLM) generate text with supporting documents. We propose LLatrieval (Large Language Model Verified Retrieval), where the LLM updates the retrieval result until it verifies that the retrieved documents can sufficiently support answering the question. Experiments show that LLatrieval significantly outperforms extensive baselines and achieves state-of-the-art results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T01:38:02Z)
• Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves [57.974103113675795]
  We present a method named Rephrase and Respond' (RaR) which allows Large Language Models to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans. RaR serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We show that RaR is complementary to the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T18:43:34Z)
• LaGR-SEQ: Language-Guided Reinforcement Learning with Sample-Efficient Querying [71.86163159193327]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated their impressive ability to provide context-aware responses via text. This ability could potentially be used to predict plausible solutions in sequential decision making tasks pertaining to pattern completion. We introduce LaGR, which uses this predictive ability of LLMs to propose solutions to tasks that have been partially completed by a primary reinforcement learning (RL) agent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T02:07:35Z)
• Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback [62.78755306241981]
  Self-Refine is an approach for improving initial outputs from large language models (LLMs) through iterative feedback and refinement. We evaluate Self-Refine across 7 diverse tasks, ranging from dialog response generation to mathematical reasoning, using state-of-the-art (GPT-3.5, ChatGPT, and GPT-4) LLMs. Our work demonstrates that even state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4 can be further improved at test time using our simple, standalone approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T18:30:01Z)
• Large Language Model Is Not a Good Few-shot Information Extractor, but a Good Reranker for Hard Samples! [43.51393135075126]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made remarkable strides in various tasks. We show that current advanced LLMs consistently exhibit inferior performance, higher latency, and increased budget requirements compared to fine-tuned SLMs. We propose an adaptive filter-then-rerank paradigm to combine the strengths of LLMs and SLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T12:20:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.