A Large-Scale, Cross-Disciplinary Corpus of Systematic Reviews

Meta-analysis is a demanding form of evidence synthesis that combines literature retrieval, PI/ECO-guided study selection, and statistical aggregation. Its structured, verifiable workflow makes it an ideal substrate for evaluating systematic scientific reasoning, yet existing benchmarks lack ground truth across the full retrieval-screening-synthesis pipeline. We introduce MetaSyn, a dataset of 442 expert-curated meta-analyses from Nature Portfolio journals. Each entry pairs a research question with PI/ECO criteria, a retrieval corpus of 140k PubMed articles, verified positive studies, hard negatives that are topically similar but PI/ECO-ineligible, and complete search strategies and date bounds. Benchmarking twelve pipeline configurations (nine RAG variants and a protocol-driven agent) reveals a critical screening bottleneck: despite a retrieval ceiling of 90.9% recall at K=200, no system recovers more than 52.7% of ground-truth included literature. Current LLMs fail to reliably separate eligible studies from PI/ECO-failing distractors in pools of comparable topical relevance. Stage-attributed metrics capture where systems succeed and fail; a single end-to-end score does not.

Systematic reviews -- which requires comprehensive evidence collection and synthesis from large document corpora in response to targeted research questions -- are foundational in finance, social sciences, and other technical fields. Manual construction of evidence tables is labor-intensive, and recent LLM-based assistants relying on embedding or keyword based search often fail to meet the coverage standards of systematic reviews. We introduce SLIDERS, a novel LLM-based methodology for systematic reviews, by automatically assembling evidence tables tailored to research questions. In addition to extracting structured data from documents, SLIDERS can extract full-text excerpts that serve as direct evidence or as provenance for structured data. Core to SLIDERS is an automated evidence reconciliation agent that writes code to analyze and reconcile extracted evidence, bringing together information fragmented across documents, resolving inconsistencies across excerpts, and synthesizing overlapping findings into a coherent evidence table. In addition, SLIDERS allows users to ask follow-up questions in natural language to further explore the assembled evidence. We evaluate SLIDERS on three systematic-review-style tasks over large document collections. SLIDERS outperforms the best-performing baseline across benchmarks, remains near 90% accuracy across 6M-11M-token corpora. On two new follow-up analysis benchmarks SLIDERS can answer 77.9% and 58.3% followup questions accurately

Context: Study screening in systematic literature reviews is costly, inconsistency-prone, and risk-asymmetric, since false negatives can compromise validity. Despite rapid uptake of Large Language Models (LLMs), there is limited evidence on how such models behave during the study screening phase, particularly regarding the choice of specific LLMs and their comparison with classical models. Objective: To assess LLM performance and variability in screening, quantify the impact of input metadata (abstract, title, keywords), and compare LLMs with classical classifiers under a shared protocol. Methods: We analyzed 12 LLMs from 4 providers (OpenAI, Google Gemini, Anthropic, Llama) and 4 classical models (Logistic Regression, Support Vector Classification, Random Forest, and Naive Bayes) on 2 real Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs), totaling 518 papers. The experimental design investigated 3 critical dimensions: (i) LLMs performance variability, (ii) the impact of input feature composition (abstract, title, and keywords) on LLM performance, and (iii) the real gain of using LLMs instead of more traditional classification models. Results: LLMs exhibited substantial heterogeneity and residual non-determinism even at temperature zero. Abstract availability was decisive: removing it consistently degraded performance, while adding title and/or keywords to the abstract yielded no robust gains. Compared to classical models, performance differences were not consistent enough to support generalizable LLM superiority. Discussion: LLM adoption should be justified by operational and governance constraints (reproducibility, cost, metadata availability), supported by pilot validation and explicit reporting of variability and input configuration.