EFFECTIVENESS OF AN LLM-ASSISTED METHOD FOR SUPPORTING STUDY SCREENING IN LITERATURE REVIEWS
Keywords:
Recuperação da informação, Revisão de literatura, Inteligência artificial, Modelos de linguagemAbstract
This study evaluates the effectiveness of a method assisted by large language models (LLMs) for screening studies in a simulated literature review procedure. The study was conducted using a corpus of 69 records retrieved from the Oasisbr Portal through a Boolean search on the topic “the use of artificial intelligence in monitoring deforestation and forest preservation in the Amazon region.” The records were classified by consensus among the authors into three categories: Include, Reassess, and Exclude. This classification was adopted as the reference standard for evaluating four current LLMs: two proprietary models, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Claude Haiku 4.5, and two open models, Llama 3.1 8B and Qwen 3 14B. The evaluation considered agreement measures, using Cohen’s Kappa, and practical utility measures, using recall for the Keep category and Work Saved over Sampling at Recall R (WSS@R). The results indicate that Gemini, Claude, and Qwen showed moderate agreement with the human reference classification, whereas Llama showed weaker performance and a greater tendency to include studies. Gemini achieved the best result as a pre-filter, with 100% recall for the Keep category and a WSS@R of 31.9%. The study concludes that LLMs can support preliminary screening and reduce the reading workload, provided that they are used under human supervision.
References
BEHROUZIAN, Amir M. et al. Linguistic polarity and decision architecture in LLM-based abstract screening for systematic reviews. Information, [s. l.], v. 17, n. 5, art. 449, maio 2026. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.3390/info17050449. Acesso em: 21 jun. 2026.
BROWN, Tom B.; MANN, Benjamin; RYDER, Nick; SUBBIAH, Melanie et al. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv, [s. l.], arXiv:2005.14165, 2020. Disponível em: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165. Acesso em: 21 jun. 2026.
COHEN, Aaron M.; HERSH, William R.; PETERSON, K.; YEN, Po-Yin et al. Reducing workload in systematic review preparation using automated citation classification. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, [s. l.], v. 13, n. 2, p. 206-219, 2006. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1929. Acesso em: 21 jun. 2026.
COOPER, Harris M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: a taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, [s. l.], v. 1, n. 1, p. 104-126, 1988. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03177550. Acesso em: 16 jun. 2026.
GRANT, Maria J.; BOOTH, Andrew. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, [s. l.], v. 26, n. 2, p. 91-108, 2009. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. Acesso em: 16 jun. 2026.
HARARI, Michael B.; PAROLA, Heather R.; HARTWELL, Christopher J.; RIEGELMAN et al. Literature searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a review, evaluation, and recommendations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, [s. l.], v. 118, art. 103377, 2020. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103377. Acesso em: 16 jun. 2026.
HIGGINS, Julian P. T.; THOMAS, James; CHANDLER, Jacqueline; CUMPSTON, Miranda et al. (ed.). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. [S. l.]: Cochrane, 2024. Disponível em: https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current. Acesso em: 20 jun. 2026.
HUOTALA, Aleksi; KUUTILA, Miikka; RALPH, Paul; MÄNTYLÄ, Mika. The promise and challenges of using LLMs to accelerate the screening process of systematic reviews. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 28., 2024, Salerno. Anais [...]. New York: ACM, 2024. p. 262-271. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1145/3661167.3661172. Acesso em: 18 jun. 2026.
LANDIS, J. Richard; KOCH, Gary G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, [s. l.], v. 33, n. 1, p. 159-174, 1977. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310. Acesso em: 21 jun. 2026.
LI, Michael; SUN, Jianping; TAN, Xianming. Evaluating the effectiveness of large language models in abstract screening: a comparative analysis. Systematic Reviews, [s. l.], v. 13, art. 219, 2024. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02609-x. Acesso em: 18 jun. 2026.
POLANIN, Joshua R.; PIGOTT, Therese D.; ESPELAGE, Dorothy L.; GROTPETER, Jennifer K. Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large-evidence systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods, [s. l.], v. 10, n. 3, p. 330-342, 2019. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1354. Acesso em: 16 jun. 2026.
SHAMEEM, Mohammad; ALSHAYEB, Mohammad; NIAZI, Mahmood; MAHMOOD, Sajjad; AHMAD, Aakash; AL DALLAL, Jehad. An exploratory study on effectiveness of GPT-4o in conducting sub-tasks of systematic literature reviews. Automated Software Engineering, [s. l.], v. 33, n. 3, art. 81, 2026. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-026-00629-6. Acesso em: 21 jun. 2026.
SNYDER, Hannah. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, [s. l.], v. 104, p. 333-339, 2019. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039. Acesso em: 16 jun. 2026.
TORRACO, Richard J. Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, [s. l.], v. 15, n. 4, p. 404-428, 2016. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606. Acesso em: 16 jun. 2026.
WEBSTER, Jane; WATSON, Richard T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, [s. l.], v. 26, n. 2, p. xiii-xxiii, 2002. Disponível em: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319. Acesso em: 16 jun. 2026.
WEI, Jason; WANG, Xuezhi; SCHUURMANS, Dale; BOSMA, Maarten et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv, [s. l.], arXiv:2201.11903, 2022. Disponível em: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903. Acesso em: 21 jun. 2026.