OpenAlex · Aktualisierung stündlich · Letzte Aktualisierung: 22.05.2026, 08:16

Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.

LLM4SCREENLIT: Recommendations on Assessing the Performance of Large Language Models for Screening Literature in Systematic Reviews

2025·0 Zitationen·ArXiv.orgOpen Access
Volltext beim Verlag öffnen

0

Zitationen

3

Autoren

2025

Jahr

Abstract

Context: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to screen literature for systematic reviews (SRs), but the standard confusion-matrix metrics used to evaluate them can mislead under the imbalanced, cost-asymmetric conditions of screening. Objective: We develop and justify LLM4SCREENLIT-practical recommendations for researchers conducting LLM-screening evaluations and for editors and reviewers assessing such studies-differentiated by study type (retrospective benchmarking vs deployment for a specific SR). Method: Using Delgado-Chaves et al. (2025), an 18-LLM benchmark across three biomedical SRs, as a motivating example, we reviewed 28 additional papers and extracted their reported metrics. We propose a Weighted Matthews Correlation Coefficient (WMCC) that integrates MCC's chance-correction with asymmetric misclassification costs, and validated it on three software-engineering (SE) reanalyses, the largest covering 9 LLMs x 24 SE secondary studies (34,528 articles). Results: Across the 29 papers, only 10% reported MCC, only 24% reported full confusion matrices, and none of the five papers claiming workload savings priced false-negative cost. In the largest SE reanalysis, MCC and WMCC disagree on the best LLM in 55% of evaluable studies; in the most striking 9,695-article SE study, the Accuracy-best LLM loses 63.3% of relevant evidence (Lost Evidence), the MCC-best 43.9%, but the WMCC-best only 5.8%. Sensitivity analysis (median crossover at w~=2.7, all <7) supports w=10 as a conservative default. Conclusions: SR-screening evaluations should prioritize Lost Evidence and use cost-sensitive WMCC alongside MCC for ranking. Reporting must include the full confusion matrix and treat unclassifiable outputs as positives requiring human review. Designs should be leakage-aware, with non-LLM baselines when the study aims to inform SR practice and labels are available.

Ähnliche Arbeiten

Autoren

Themen

Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationComputational and Text Analysis MethodsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Volltext beim Verlag öffnen