Cited by 83Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic Modeling

Screening articles for systematic reviews with ChatGPT

Open access
Syriani, Eugene, David, Istvan, Kumar, Gauransh·2024·Journal of Computer Languages

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SRs) provide valuable evidence for guiding new research directions. However, the manual effort involved in selecting articles for inclusion in an SR is error-prone and time-consuming. While screening articles has traditionally been considered challenging to automate, the advent of large language models offers new possibilities. In this paper, we discuss the effect of using ChatGPT on the SR process. In particular, we investigate the effectiveness of different prompt strategies for automating the article screening process using five real SR datasets. Our results show that ChatGPT can reach up to 82% accuracy. The best performing prompts specify exclusion criteria and avoid negative shots. However, prompts should be adapted to different corpus characteristics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cola.2024.101287

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The most effective prompts clearly state exclusion criteria and avoid negative examples, but they should also be tailored to the specific features of the corpus.

    “The most effective prompts clearly state exclusion criteria and avoid negative examples, but they should also be tailored to the specific features of the corpus (Syriani et al., 2024).”

    From Machine Learning-Assisted Systematic Review: A Case Study in Learning Analytics (2025) · cites this paper as Syriani et al., 2024

  • Initial studies indicate that LLM performance in identifying relevant publications is highly dependent on the prompt and often results in high differences between sensitivity and specificity, reflecting the tendency of LLMs toward overconfidence or underconfidence.

    “Initial studies indicate that LLM performance in identifying relevant publications is highly dependent on the prompt and often results in high differences between sensitivity and speci fi city, re fl ecting the tendency of LLMs toward overcon fi dence or undercon fi dence.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Syriani, E., David, I., & Kumar, G.
Affiliations
Université de Montréal (CA)
Corresponding author
Syriani, Eugene
Venue
Journal of Computer Languages
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-08
Volume
80
Pages
101287
ISSN
2590-1184 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400411501
Cited by
82
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 4
FWCI
10.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Computer Languages (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
systematic reviews, article screening, ChatGPT, large language models, prompt engineering, exclusion criteria, negative examples

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review