Systematic Review Automation

Systematic literature reviews follow the PRISMA process of screening scholarly works and extracting evidence from included studies. Deep research tools based on large language models (LLMs) can search and summarize the literature but do not record which studies are excluded or where extracted values come from. We develop a conversational multi-agent system called ReviewPilot that automates the PRISMA workflow from paper screening to information extraction. Researchers can tailor criteria and schemas through dialogue, and a project memory keeps their configurations and revisions. Each screening decision comes with its reason and each extracted value with its source. On epidemiological expert reviews, ReviewPilot outperforms a single-prompt LLM and AgentSLR across three LLMs, with screening macro F1 up to 0.776 and extraction F1 up to 0.788. Case studies in biomedicine and human-computer interaction show close agreement with human annotators, suggesting that ReviewPilot can transfer beyond epidemiology. Code is available at https://github.com/ZhaoqianXue/ReviewPilot.

Systematic reviews underpin clinical guidelines, yet their data-extraction step is a major expert-labor bottleneck bound by a protocolized workflow: two reviewers extract each study independently, an adjudicator resolves disagreements, and the team keeps an auditable record of how every value was produced. Large language models can assist with extraction, but that assistance must fit established review protocols and preserve reproducibility. We present EviStreams, a live, open-source, no-code web platform that puts review teams in control of AI-assisted extraction at three key stages: program design (a structured decomposition approved before any code runs), field specification (typed field definitions calibrated from a pilot), and extracted predictions (reviewer-blinded dual review with adjudication). Working through a form builder, a domain expert defines typed fields rather than prompts, runs extraction over uploaded PDFs, inspects every value alongside the supporting passage it came from, and resolves a reviewer-blinded dual review into an auditable consensus export. An evaluation across four clinical corpora and three frontier model families, released with the system, shows that extraction quality is shaped far more by the field specification than by the choice of model. EviStreams is live at https://evistreams.com/demo and released under Apache-2.0.

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.

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 Literature Reviews (SLRs) are essential for evidence-based research but remain time-consuming, requiring researchers to manage large volumes of publications across planning, screening, analysis, and reporting. Large language models (LLMs) can now produce fluent, well-structured review text, which makes it difficult to distinguish synthesis that was verified by a researcher from synthesis that merely appears authoritative. This raises the risk that unverified AI-generated synthesis enters the scholarly record carrying the credibility of a systematic review. We present CoSLR, a Human-AI collaborative multi-agent system that supports the SLR workflow through a modular three-phase pipeline using large language models and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and that places explicit, mandatory human checkpoints on the path between generated output and its acceptance. In a survey-based study with 63 participants, the system was received positively: 27 of 63 participants (42.9 percent) rated its usability highly, indicating that the mandatory checkpoints did not come at the cost of a workable interface. However, a checkpoint safeguards the review only if researchers use it to verify: 22 of 63 participants (34.9 percent) reported that they would trust AI-generated summaries and reports without additional human checking after only a short interaction with the system. These findings indicate that Human-AI collaboration can support literature review work, but that the effectiveness of human oversight depends on whether users are willing to exercise it. This is a calibration problem that interface design must address directly, not assume.

Systematic reviews require sustained human judgment across thousands of records, yet existing evaluations of large language models (LLMs) typically examine review stages in isolation. We introduce SciLitBench, a multi-stage benchmark spanning title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and schema-guided data extraction, with 42,981 retrieved records, 1,012 full texts, and annotations for 888 included papers. Across 22 open-weight LLMs from six model families, explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria improve title and abstract screening $F_2$ by 28.8%, while researcher-authored rationales improve full-text screening by 15%. Data extraction reveals a different reliability regime: performance declines from 0.97 accuracy for publication year to 0.37 Jaccard overlap for computational approach, while the strongest models recover only 30% of annotated evaluation evidence and 25% of limitations. SciLitBench identifies a practical boundary between high-recall screening and evidence-complete extraction and provides a reproducible resource for evaluating LLM-assisted evidence synthesis.

Systematic reviews, scoping reviews, mapping studies, and related evidence syntheses are increasingly difficult to conduct with fully manual workflows as search volumes, update cycles, and synthesis requirements continue to expand. At the same time, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and large language models are rapidly entering review practice across query formulation, screening, extraction, categorization, appraisal support, and reporting. Yet the empirical evidence remains uneven, task-dependent, and insufficient to justify unconstrained automation. Existing standards such as PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-S, PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA-P, PRESS, and SWiM remain essential, but none provides an end-to-end operational standard for when AI use is methodologically appropriate, how it should be validated, which review decisions must remain human-led, and how AI involvement should be reported so that readers can audit it. This paper proposes ARISMA, an AI Reporting and Integration standard for Systematic Methods and Analysis. ARISMA treats AI as an inspected, benchmarked, logged, and reversible assistant rather than an autonomous reviewer. It is built around one governing principle: every consequential scientific decision must remain human-interpretable, human-auditable, and human-accountable. The paper contributes a lifecycle taxonomy, process guidance, stepwise recommendations across the review pipeline, a governance and provenance model, a tool-support framework, an AI-integrated reporting checklist, and a validation matrix. It also addresses legal, privacy, infrastructure, and sustainability considerations. The framework was iteratively refined through structured expert consultation. The result is a practical and auditable guideline for responsible AI-assisted evidence synthesis.

Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, while capable of summarizing text, there is no guarantee they can meet the rigour, reliability, and transparency that SLRs require. Objectives: To support researchers intending to conduct SLRs using GenAI or those conducting empirical studies evaluating how well GenAI supports SLR tasks. Methods: First, we conducted a rapid review to identify studies that propose guidelines for evaluating and using GenAI and LLMs to support SLRs. Second, we drew on thought experiments, relevant guidance from the literature, and our own experience conducting SLRs and evaluating tools to develop recommendations for how to use and assess GenAI in the context of SLRs. Results: We discuss the problems researchers face when evaluating GenAI for SLRs. We identify and explain process issues to consider when planning, conducting, and reporting both SLRs using GenAI and evaluations of GenAI tools. Finally, we summarize our results as a set of process recommendations, which we name GUEST (GenAI Use and Evaluation in SLR Tasks). Conclusion: We argue that GenAI requires human oversight and is not currently capable of unsupervised systematic studies. However, it offers the prospect of cost-effective assistance for some repetitive tasks and for additional validation of some complex tasks. Our GUEST recommendations should help software engineering researchers both to conduct and report trustworthy SLRs using GenAI and to provide rigorous independent evaluation studies.

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 rely on forest plots to synthesise quantitative evidence across biomedical studies, but generating them remains a fragmented and labour-intensive process. Researchers must interpret complex clinical texts, manually extract outcome data from trials, define appropriate interventions and comparators, harmonise inconsistent study designs, and carry out meta-analytic computations-typically using specialised software that demands structured inputs and domain expertise. While recent work has demonstrated that large language models can extract study-level data from unstructured text, no existing system automates the complete pipeline from raw documents to synthesised forest plots. To address this gap, we introduce AutoForest, the first end-to-end system that generates publication-ready forest plots directly from biomedical papers. Given one or more study papers, AutoForest automatically suggests ICO (Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) elements, extracts outcome data, performs statistical synthesis, and renders the final forest plot. We describe the system architecture, user interface and demonstrate its effectiveness on real-world examples through a user study involving clinicians, showing how AutoForest can accelerate evidence synthesis and substantially lower the barrier to conducting meta-analyses.

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

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.

Objective: To describe the architecture and design rationale of meta-pipe, an open-source large language model (LLM)-agent pipeline that integrates the complete systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) workflow -- from literature search through statistical analysis, manuscript generation, and quality assurance -- with mandatory human oversight at critical decision points. Study Design and Setting: We developed a 10-stage modular pipeline integrating Claude (Anthropic; Opus 4 for reasoning, Haiku 3.5 for classification) for LLM-assisted screening and extraction, Python (~3,600 lines of code) for automation, R (meta, metafor, gemtc, netmeta) for statistical analysis, and Quarto for manuscript rendering. Five mandatory human decision points enforce oversight. We systematically compared meta-pipe's capabilities with five existing SR automation tools based on published documentation as of March 2026. Results: meta-pipe offers four capabilities not available in any single existing tool: automated manuscript generation from analysis outputs, semi-automated GRADE assessment, overclaim detection (12 predefined patterns), and dual-paradigm network meta-analysis (Bayesian and frequentist). Estimated API cost is $15-30 per typical 5-10 study review. No validation data are reported; this is a system description, not a validation study. Conclusion: End-to-end AI-assisted evidence synthesis is architecturally feasible as an open-source tool with mandatory human oversight. Formal validation reproducing published Cochrane reviews is underway and essential before routine use.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) remain the gold standard for evidence synthesis, yet completing one typically requires 67 weeks and substantial expert effort. Recent large language model (LLM) systems have demonstrated strong performance on individual SR phases - screening (otto-SR: 96.7% sensitivity), extraction (Gartlehner et al.: 91.0% accuracy), and search (TrialMind: 0.83 recall) - but no study has reported what it actually costs to run an end-to-end pipeline, how cost distributes across phases, or how architectural choices affect the cost-quality trade-off. We present LUMEN, an open-source multi-agent pipeline that automates six SR/MA phases using 11 specialized LLM agents with deliberate model routing. We evaluate LUMEN on seven datasets: five self-conducted domain reviews (psychiatry, psychology, surgery, vaccinology, cardiology) and two SYNERGY screening benchmarks. Across 13 ground-truth-comparable outcomes, LUMEN achieves 100% directional agreement with published meta-analyses, with effect sizes within 1% for homogeneous study designs. The primary contribution is the first empirical cost and operational characterization of such a pipeline: a complete review costs 19 to 29 USD (median 22.65 USD), with title-abstract screening and data extraction together dominating expenditure. A three-arm extraction ablation reveals a phase-dependent architecture reversal: multi-agent design hurts screening but is essential for extraction, producing 5.7x more poolable analyses than single-model alternatives while eliminating clinically dangerous direction errors. A two-dataset screening benchmark demonstrates that model ranking is domain-dependent and not transferable across review topics. All code and cost logs are publicly available.

Systematic reviews traditionally have taken considerable amounts of human time and energy to complete, in part due to the extensive number of titles and abstracts that must be reviewed for potential inclusion. Recently, researchers have begun to explore how to use large language models (LLMs) to make this process more efficient. However, research to date has shown inconsistent results. We posit this is because prompting alone may not provide sufficient context for the model(s) to perform well. In this study, we fine-tune a small 1.2 billion parameter open-weight LLM specifically for study screening in the context of a systematic review in which humans rated more than 8500 titles and abstracts for potential inclusion. Our results showed strong performance improvements from the fine-tuned model, with the weighted F1 score improving 80.79% compared to the base model. When run on the full dataset of 8,277 studies, the fine-tuned model had 86.40% agreement with the human coder, a 91.18% true positive rate, a 86.38% true negative rate, and perfect agreement across multiple inference runs. Taken together, our results show that there is promise for fine-tuning LLMs for title and abstract screening in large-scale systematic reviews.

Structured extraction of evidence from clinical trial publications underpins systematic reviews and clinical guidelines, yet large language models are adopted for it only hesitantly: their outputs are difficult to verify, their use commonly requires transmitting documents to proprietary services, and they do not improve from the corrections their users make. We present EviSearch, a multi-agent system that addresses these three obstacles. Three tool-augmented agents with complementary access to a publication extract every column of an evidence table, and a value is admitted only after an attribution verifier has read it on its cited page, so that every value carries a page-level attribution. Disagreement between independent agents directs human review to the cells most likely to be wrong, and reviewer feedback refines the schema definitions and a curation knowledge base without updating model parameters. The agentic system runs entirely offline on open-weight models. On a clinician-annotated benchmark of randomized-trial publications, EviSearch attributes 100.0% of its values, reaches 91.70% accuracy autonomously, and reaches 95.22% after review of 15.6% of cells, exceeding random review of the strongest single agent at equal effort by 1.75 points.

Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a demanding and high-stakes form of scientific knowledge synthesis that remains underspecified as an evaluation setting for large language models (LLMs). We introduce AgentSLR, a large-scale evaluation harness comprising an SLR automation workflow and an expert annotated dataset covering 16,248 articles, designed to test LLM capabilities across the stages of SLRs in epidemiology. Reference annotations were derived from peer-reviewed studies on WHO priority pathogens and produced by domain experts. The harness evaluates each review stage as a separate unit with dedicated metrics enabling targeted failure analysis. We evaluated five frontier reasoning models and found that no single model dominated across all tasks, showing sub-task specialisation often hidden by aggregate benchmarks. Structured data extraction is a major bottleneck, with no model exceeding an average field-level F1 of 0.67. Estimated costs vary substantially, by up to 96 times across evaluated models. Documented failure modes suggest that the evaluated models are not yet reliable enough for unsupervised deployment in epidemiology, where findings can inform public policy.

This study presents OpenExtract, an open-source pipeline for automated data extraction in large-scale systematic literature reviews. The pipeline queries large language models (LLMs) to predict data entries based on relevant sections of scientific articles. To test the efficacy of OpenExtract, we apply it to a systematic literature review in digital health and compare its outputs with those of human researchers. OpenExtract achieves precision and recall scores of > 0.8 in this task, indicating that it can be effective at extracting data automatically and efficiently. OpenExtract: https://github.com/JimAchterbergLUMC/OpenExtract.