Using Artificial Intelligence Tools as Second Reviewers for Data Extraction in Systematic Reviews: A Performance Comparison of Two AI Tools Against Human Reviewers.

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are essential but time-consuming and expensive. Large language models (LLMs) and artificial intelligence (AI) tools could potentially automate data extraction, but no comprehensive workflow has been tested for different review types.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate Elicit's and ChatGPT's abilities to extract data from journal articles as a replacement for one of two human data extractors in systematic reviews.

METHODS

Human-extracted data from three systematic reviews (30 articles in total) was compared to data extracted by Elicit and ChatGPT. The AI tools extracted population characteristics, study design, and review-specific variables. Performance metrics were calculated against human double-extracted data as the gold standard, followed by a detailed error analysis.

RESULTS

Precision, recall and F1-score were all 92% for Elicit and 91%, 89% and 90% for ChatGPT. Recall was highest for study design (Elicit: 100%; ChatGPT: 90%) and population characteristics (Elicit: 100%; ChatGPT: 97%), while review-specific variables achieved 77% in Elicit and 80% in ChatGPT. Elicit had four instances of confabulation while ChatGPT had three. There was no significant difference between the two AI tools' performance (recall difference: 3.3% points, 95% CI: -5.2%-11.9%,  = 0.445).

CONCLUSION

AI tools demonstrated high and similar performance in data extraction compared to human reviewers, particularly for standardized variables. Error analysis revealed confabulations in 4% of data points. We propose adopting AI-assisted extraction to replace the second human extractor, with the second human instead focusing on reconciling discrepancies between AI and the primary human extractor.