Actionable companion · Learning design & outcomes

Learning with agency: Accuracy of Large Language Models for Literature Screening in Thoracic Surgery: Diagnostic Study

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not claims or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.

Evidence and context

Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Higher education. Verify the participant population and task before transferring the findings.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Abstract Background Systematic reviews and meta-analyses rely on labor-intensive literature screening. While machine learning offers potential automation, its accuracy remains suboptimal. This raises the question of whether emerging large language models (LLMs) can provide a more accurate and efficient approach. Objective This paper evaluates the sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve of LLM-assisted literature screening. Methods We conducted a diagnostic study comparing the accuracy of LLM-assisted screening versus manual literature screening across 6 thoracic surgery meta-analyses. Manual screening by 2 investigators served as the reference standard. LLM-assisted screening was performed using ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI) and Claude-3.5 (Anthropic) sonnet, with discrepancies resolved by Gemini-1.5 pro (Google). In addition, 2 open-source, machine learning–based screening tools, ASReview (Utrecht University) and Abstrackr (Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health), were also evaluated. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and 95% CIs for the title and abstract, as well as full-text screening, generating pooled estimates and SROC curves. LLM prompts were revised based on a post hoc error analysis. Results LLM-assisted full-text screening demonstrated high pooled sensitivity (0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.99) and specificity (0.96, 95% CI 0.91-0.98), with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97). Title and abstract screening achieved a pooled sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI 0.57-0.85) and specificity of 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-0.99), with an AUC of 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.99). Post hoc revisions improved sensitivity to 0.98 (95% CI 0.74-1.00) while maintaining high specificity (0.98, 95% CI 0.94-0.99). In comparison, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of ASReview tool-assisted screening were 0.58 (95% CI 0.53-0.64) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.91-0.99), respectively, with an AUC of 0.66 (95% CI 0.62-0.70). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of Abstrackr tool-assisted screening were 0.48 (95% CI 0.35-0.62) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.88-0.99), respectively, with an AUC of 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.82). A post hoc meta-analysis revealed comparable effect sizes between LLM-assisted and conventional screening. Conclusions LLMs hold significant potential for streamlining literature screening in systematic reviews, reducing workload without sacrificing quality. Importantly, LLMs outperformed traditional machine learning-based tools (ASReview and Abstrackr) in both sensitivity and AUC values, suggesting that LLMs offer a more accurate and efficient approach to literature screening. Keywords: accuracy, large language models, meta-analysis, literature screening, thoracic surgery

A 90-day district pilot

1. Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
2. Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one disciplinary task. Require a first attempt, a documented AI consultation, a critique of the output and an independent explanation. Align the comparison group and scoring rubric with the same objective. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
3. Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
4. Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning and accuracy on a new task without AI. Distinguish model examination scores, student perceptions and actual learner gains; only the last directly tests educational benefit. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Zhang-Yi Dai; Fu-Qiang Wang; Cheng Shen; Yan-Li Ji; Zhi-Yang Li; Yun Wang; Qiang Pu. Accuracy of Large Language Models for Literature Screening in Thoracic Surgery: Diagnostic Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research (2025-03-11). https://doi.org/10.2196/67488

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.