Automated Literature Screening for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment Through Integration of 3 Large Language Models: Methodological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Primary liver cancer, particularly hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), poses significant clinical challenges due to late-stage diagnosis, tumor heterogeneity, and rapidly evolving therapeutic strategies. While systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential for updating clinical guidelines, their labor-intensive nature limits timely evidence synthesis. Objective This study proposes an automated literature screening workflow powered by large language models (LLMs) to accelerate evidence synthesis for HCC treatment guidelines. Methods We developed a tripartite LLM framework integrating Doubao-1.5-pro-32k, Deepseek-v3, and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B to simulate collaborative decision-making for study inclusion and exclusion. The system was evaluated across 9 reconstructed datasets derived from published HCC meta-analyses, with performance assessed using accuracy, agreement metrics (κ and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted κ), recall, precision, F1-scores, and computational efficiency parameters (processing time and cost). Results The framework demonstrated good performance, with a weighted accuracy of 0.96 and substantial agreement (prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted κ=0.91), achieving high weighted recall (0.90) but modest weighted precision (0.15) and F1-scores (0.22). Computational efficiency varied across datasets (processing time: 248-5850 s; cost: US $0.14-$3.68 per dataset). Conclusions This LLM-driven approach shows promise for accelerating evidence synthesis in HCC care by reducing screening time while maintaining methodological rigor. Key limitations related to clinical context sensitivity and error propagation highlight the need for reinforcement learning integration and domain-specific fine-tuning. LLM agent architectures with reinforcement learning offer a practical path for streamlining guideline updates, though further optimization is needed to improve specialization and reliability in complex clinical settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".