Class Imbalance and Batch Effects in LLM-Based Screening for Systematic Reviews

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.

Systematic reviews (SR) are essential for evidence-based research, but their screening phase is highly time-consuming and labor-intensive. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising opportunity to reduce this workload by assisting with article relevance classification. However, existing evaluation approaches often rely on traditional metrics that may be misleading for highly imbalanced SR screening datasets. This paper presents a benchmark dataset of $45\,064$ labeled entries for evaluating LLM performance in SR screening across 32 curated secondary studies. It proposes an evaluation framework that accounts for class imbalance, i.e., the natural prevalence of excluded articles relative to included articles in SRs. It also introduces PromptSR, a tool designed to support prompt experimentation, experiment management, and result analysis for LLM-based screening. We also present a use case demonstrating the application of SRBench and PromptSR.

Screening in systematic reviews (SRs) is manual and time-consuming. Prior work has explored large language models (LLMs) for automating this step, but LLMs are evolving rapidly, so earlier performance claims may no longer accurately reflect their screening performance. We used an existing software engineering SR screening benchmark (SESR-Eval) as our data. We also power-sampled a new, smaller dataset (SESR-Eval-Mini) that allows evaluation at lower costs. Using this data, we evaluated eight new LLMs for screening performance. Additionally, we tested different prompts, analyzed LLM agreement in screening decisions and criteria, and examined the effect of refining the inclusion and exclusion criteria on screening performance. The eight new LLMs performed marginally better than the seven old ones: avg. MCC across secondary studies rose from 0.347 to 0.365. Differences between secondary studies are still bigger than between LLMs. Computing the overall screening decision from criterion-level decisions degraded screening performance only slightly. LLMs generally agree with each other in their corresponding screening decisions (mean Gwet's AC1 = 0.830), though certain inclusion and exclusion criteria showed larger disagreement than others. Refining the inclusion and exclusion criteria slightly improved recall and made decisions easier for some LLMs, but overall impacts of criteria refinement were modest. LLMs are not yet ready to replace humans in paper screening and the advantages new, more costly models bring, appear to be very limited. Agent-based approaches, prompt engineering, and further criteria refinement are three potential future research avenues.