Data extraction for evidence synthesis using a large language model: A proof‐of‐concept study
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 3 March 2024
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Research Synthesis Methods
- Vol. 15 (4) , 576-589
Abstract
Data extraction is a crucial, yet labor‐intensive and error‐prone part of evidence synthesis. To date, efforts to harness machine learning for enhancing efficiency of the data extraction process have fallen short of achieving sufficient accuracy and usability. With the release of large language models (LLMs), new possibilities have emerged to increase efficiency and accuracy of data extraction for evidence synthesis. The objective of this proof‐of‐concept study was to assess the performance of an LLM (Claude 2) in extracting data elements from published studies, compared with human data extraction as employed in systematic reviews. Our analysis utilized a convenience sample of 10 English‐language, open‐access publications of randomized controlled trials included in a single systematic review. We selected 16 distinct types of data, posing varying degrees of difficulty (160 data elements across 10 studies). We used the browser version of Claude 2 to upload the portable document format of each publication and then prompted the model for each data element. Across 160 data elements, Claude 2 demonstrated an overall accuracy of 96.3% with a high test–retest reliability (replication 1: 96.9%; replication 2: 95.0% accuracy). Overall, Claude 2 made 6 errors on 160 data items. The most common errors (n = 4) were missed data items. Importantly, Claude 2's ease of use was high; it required no technical expertise or labeled training data for effective operation (i.e., zero‐shot learning). Based on findings of our proof‐of‐concept study, leveraging LLMs has the potential to substantially enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data extraction for evidence syntheses.Keywords
All Related Versions
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Using artificial intelligence methods for systematic review in health sciences: A systematic reviewResearch Synthesis Methods, 2022
- Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping reviewJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2021
- A randomized trial provided new evidence on the accuracy and efficiency of traditional vs. electronically annotated abstraction approaches in systematic reviewsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2019
- Secukinumab is Superior to Ustekinumab in Clearing Skin in Patients with Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis (16-Week CLARITY Results)Dermatology and Therapy, 2018
- Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis: Results through 48 weeks of a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, etanercept- and placebo-controlled study (CIMPACT)Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2018
- Dual neutralization of both interleukin 17A and interleukin 17F with bimekizumab in patients with psoriasis: Results from BE ABLE 1, a 12-week randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase 2b trialJournal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2018
- Efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an anti-interleukin-23 monoclonal antibody, compared with adalimumab for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with randomized withdrawal and retreatment: Results from the phase III, double-blind, placebo- and active comparator–controlled VOYAGE 2 trialJournal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2017
- First‐in‐human randomized study of bimekizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody and selective dual inhibitor of IL‐17A and IL‐17F, in mild psoriasisBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2016
- Secukinumab is superior to ustekinumab in clearing skin of subjects with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: CLEAR, a randomized controlled trialJournal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2015
- Chapter 9: Options for Summarizing Medical Test Performance in the Absence of a “Gold Standard”Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2012