MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413050748 · doi:10.3233/shti251145

Transforming Literature Reviews in Healthcare Research with Artificial Intelligence: Preliminary Insights

2025· article· en· W4413050748 on OpenAlexaff
Christie L. Martin, Caitlin Bakker, Jenna L. Marquard, Scott Sittig, Jean Pierre Allain, Akshitha D. Gopikrishnan, Ming‐Yuan Chih, Vincent Peta, Grace Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careComputer scienceData sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rapidly expanding array of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, with continually evolving features and functionalities, offers unprecedented opportunities to streamline literature reviews, expediting the screening, extraction, and synthesis phases. We present preliminary findings of evaluating various AI tools' strengths and limitations.

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)0.134
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.317
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1340.317
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0200.029
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0150.015
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.300
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.232 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207