Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Artificial Intelligence to Automate Network Meta-Analyses: Four Case Studies to Evaluate the Potential Application of Large Language Models
56
Zitationen
6
Autoren
2024
Jahr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emergence of artificial intelligence, capable of human-level performance on some tasks, presents an opportunity to revolutionise development of systematic reviews and network meta-analyses (NMAs). In this pilot study, we aim to assess use of a large-language model (LLM, Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 [GPT-4]) to automatically extract data from publications, write an R script to conduct an NMA and interpret the results. METHODS: We considered four case studies involving binary and time-to-event outcomes in two disease areas, for which an NMA had previously been conducted manually. For each case study, a Python script was developed that communicated with the LLM via application programming interface (API) calls. The LLM was prompted to extract relevant data from publications, to create an R script to be used to run the NMA and then to produce a small report describing the analysis. RESULTS: The LLM had a > 99% success rate of accurately extracting data across 20 runs for each case study and could generate R scripts that could be run end-to-end without human input. It also produced good quality reports describing the disease area, analysis conducted, results obtained and a correct interpretation of the results. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a promising indication of the feasibility of using current generation LLMs to automate data extraction, code generation and NMA result interpretation, which could result in significant time savings and reduce human error. This is provided that routine technical checks are performed, as recommend for human-conducted analyses. Whilst not currently 100% consistent, LLMs are likely to improve with time.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
2021 · 91.333 Zit.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
2009 · 83.122 Zit.
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
1977 · 78.177 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 63.670 Zit.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
2003 · 62.320 Zit.