MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408937960 · doi:10.2196/58366

The AI Reviewer: Evaluating AI’s Role in Citation Screening for Streamlined Systematic Reviews

2025· article· en· W4408937960 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jamie Ghossein, Brett N. Hryciw, Tim Ramsay, Kwadwo Kyeremanteng

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalMontfort HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationSystematic reviewMedicineData scienceInformation retrievalComputer scienceLibrary scienceMEDLINEChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study serves as an exploratory analysis of the efficacy of various large language models in a direct comparison of automated title and abstract screening for systematic reviews and demonstrates promising but variable agreement levels with human reviewers emphasizing the importance of model selection for systematic review.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.767
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.955
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7670.955
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0260.023
Science and technology studies0.0090.010
Scholarly communication0.0200.021
Open science0.0060.010
Research integrity0.0140.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.505
GPT teacher head0.641
Teacher spread0.136 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education→French-language works237,207→