Logo do repositório
 
Publicação

“Can a chatbot be used in the full-text screening in a systematic review?”

dc.contributor.authorMartins, André Miguel
dc.contributor.authorJuan, Luis Félix Valero
dc.contributor.authorOliveira, Adriana
dc.contributor.authorMartins, João Paulo
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Marlene
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Marlene
dc.contributor.authorOliveira Martins, João Paulo
dc.date.accessioned2026-07-06T13:48:24Z
dc.date.available2026-07-06T13:48:24Z
dc.date.issued2026-07-01
dc.description.abstractLarge language model–based artificial intelligence tools are increasingly explored to support systematic reviews, yet evidence regarding their reliability in full-text screening remains limited. This study evaluated the performance of two versions of ChatGPT (4.0 and 5.0) compared with human reviewers during article selection for a systematic review on influenza vaccine effectiveness. A total of 170 full-text articles were independently assessed for eligibility using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Human reviewers served as the gold standard. ChatGPT 4.0 and 5.0 were prompted using standardized instructions mirroring the review protocol. Agreement with human decisions was evaluated using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1-score, and Cohen’s κ. Intra-model reproducibility was assessed for ChatGPT 5.0. Results: ChatGPT 4.0 achieved an accuracy of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.64–0.78) and a Cohen’s κ of 0.43, indicating moderate agreement with human reviewers. ChatGPT 5.0 demonstrated improved performance, with accuracy increasing 0.06 to 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70–0.83), sensitivity of 0.87, specificity of 0.70, and κ of 0.55, corresponding to moderate-to-substantial agreement. Intra-model reproducibility for ChatGPT 5.0 showed 80% agreement (κ = 0.60), indicating partial but imperfect consistency. ChatGPT 5.0 outperformed ChatGPT 4.0 in full-text screening accuracy and reproducibility, approaching but not matching human performance. These findings support the use of current LLMs as decision- support tools rather than autonomous reviewers in systematic reviews. Transparent reporting of model versions, prompts, and input quality is essential to ensure credible AI-assisted evidence synthesis.eng
dc.identifier.citationMartins, A. M., Valero Juan, L. F., Oliveira, A., Martins, J. P., & Santos, M. (2026). “Can a chatbot be used in the full-text screening in a systematic review?” International Journal of Medical Informatics, 214, 106422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2026.106422
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2026.106422
dc.identifier.eissn1872-8243
dc.identifier.issn1386-5056
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.22/32551
dc.language.isoeng
dc.peerreviewedyes
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.hasversionhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505626001620?via%3Dihub
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectSystematic review
dc.subjectChatGPT
dc.subjectArtificial intelligence
dc.subjectLarge language models
dc.subjectFull-text screening
dc.subjectReproducibility
dc.subjectChatbot
dc.title“Can a chatbot be used in the full-text screening in a systematic review?”eng
dc.typejournal article
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.titleInternational Journal of Medical Informatics
oaire.citation.volume214
oaire.versionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
person.familyNameSantos
person.familyNameOliveira Martins
person.givenNameMarlene
person.givenNameJoão Paulo
person.identifier1508370
person.identifier955929
person.identifier.ciencia-id8311-B967-31C4
person.identifier.ciencia-id6913-C065-48FF
person.identifier.orcid0000-0001-5020-5942
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-0474-1397
person.identifier.scopus-author-id57110502000
person.identifier.scopus-author-id55838096100
relation.isAuthorOfPublication8ce9ee39-a4c6-46ae-99e2-49397b550f1b
relation.isAuthorOfPublication9d1f7388-bb3e-4f1d-bf41-08a589b1d6a8
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery8ce9ee39-a4c6-46ae-99e2-49397b550f1b

Ficheiros

Principais
A mostrar 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura indisponível
Nome:
ART_André Martins.pdf
Tamanho:
3.04 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Licença
A mostrar 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura indisponível
Nome:
license.txt
Tamanho:
4.03 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descrição: