EviStreams: Human-in-the-Loop AI Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews in Medicine

Server-based screening tools impose subscription costs, while open-source alternatives require coding skills, and full-text screening has remained outside the scope of no-code open-source tools. We developed TiAb Review Plugin, an open-source Chrome browser extension that provides no-code, serverless artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted study selection covering both title and abstract (T&A) screening and full-text screening. It uses Google Sheets as a shared database and Google Drive as a PDF store, and users supply their own large language model (LLM) API key. For T&A screening, it offers manual review, LLM batch screening, and machine learning (ML) active learning. For full-text screening, it retrieves open-access PDFs from PubMed Central, Europe PMC, Unpaywall, OpenAlex, and publisher pages, supports blinded dual review with structured exclusion reasons and adjudication, optionally obtains an LLM judgment with page-anchored evidence, and computes PRISMA 2020 flow counts. We re-implemented the default ASReview algorithm (TF-IDF with Naive Bayes) in TypeScript and compared it with the Python original using 10-fold cross-validation on six datasets. For LLM T&A screening, we compared 16 parameter configurations on a benchmark dataset, validated the best (Gemini 3.0 Flash, low thinking budget, TopP 0.95) on five public datasets (1,038 to 5,628 records; 0.5% to 2.0% prevalence), and benchmarked nine further models from four developers. The TypeScript classifier produced top-100 rankings identical to ASReview on all six datasets. LLM T&A screening achieved recall of 94% to 100% with precision of 2% to 15%, and work saved over sampling at 95% recall (WSS@95) of 46.3% to 89.3%. No additional model exceeded the 96.1% recall of the reference configuration; the most recent models traded recall for precision. The classification accuracy of the full-text stage has not yet been evaluated.

Large language models (LLMs) and AI-enabled software increasingly participate in systematic-review decisions, yet the information needed to audit these workflows is reported inconsistently. We analyze SciLitBench, a corpus of 888 review-automation papers with 14,726 annotations, to characterize changes in methods, review-stage use, evaluation and reported limitations. Automation has shifted toward LLM- and software-facing workflows, including stages that can alter the evidence base. Since 2023, 38.0% of software/product papers reported no evaluation, compared with 9.3% of LLM papers. Reporting coverage increased with LLM workflow complexity, yet 52% of positive-only LLM evaluations still reported an unmet reliability or performance requirement. From these patterns, we introduce PRISMA-LLM, an empirically grounded framework separating implementation disclosure from consequence-sensitive evaluation and limitation reporting.

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