StudyTypeTeller—Large language models to automatically classify research study types for systematic reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
screening, a labor-intensive aspect of systematic review, is increasingly challenging due to the rising volume of scientific publications. Recent advances suggest that generative large language models like generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) could aid this process by classifying references into study types such as randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) or animal studies prior to abstract screening. However, it is unknown how these GPT models perform in classifying such scientific study types in the biomedical field. Additionally, their performance has not been directly compared with earlier transformer-based models like bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT). To address this, we developed a human-annotated corpus of 2,645 PubMed titles and abstracts, annotated for 14 study types, including different types of RCTs and animal studies, systematic reviews, study protocols, case reports, as well as in vitro studies. Using this corpus, we compared the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in automatically classifying these study types against established BERT models. Our results show that fine-tuned pretrained BERT models consistently outperformed GPT models, achieving F1-scores above 0.8, compared to approximately 0.6 for GPT models. Advanced prompting strategies did not substantially boost GPT performance. In conclusion, these findings highlight that, even though GPT models benefit from advanced capabilities and extensive training data, their performance in niche tasks like scientific multi-class study classification is inferior to smaller fine-tuned models. Nevertheless, the use of automated methods remains promising for reducing the volume of records, making the screening of large reference libraries more feasible. Our corpus is openly available and can be used to harness other natural language processing (NLP) approaches.
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 | 0.033 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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.
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".