首页|期刊导航|中国循证儿科杂志|大语言模型驱动的文献摘要筛选工具应用方法学构建和验证的诊断准确性研究

大语言模型驱动的文献摘要筛选工具应用方法学构建和验证的诊断准确性研究OA

A diagnostic accuracy study of methodological development and validation of an large language models-driven literature abstract screening tool

中文摘要英文摘要

背景 在二次文献研究中,逐篇阅读数千至数万篇文献进行筛选,既面临多人筛选的不一致性问题,更消耗大量人力与时间成本.目的 通过"人-人工智能(artificial intelligence,AI)-人协同的循证医学实践",建立AI辅助筛选流程,为大规模文献筛选提供可靠的技术解决方案.设计 诊断准确性研究.方法 基于高性能大语言模型架构,以GPT-5构建包含PICO语义解析、证据链语义推理、判定机制、提示工程与规则约束的4个模块的AI辅助文献摘要筛选工具,以阴性预测值(negative predictive value,NPV)作为筛选质量控制指标,采用抽样和全部文献分阶段验证.主要结局指标 抽样和全部文献接连的AI筛选NPV均为100%,且研究者判断保留文献数量基本符合临床预期.结果 本研究纳入了4个注册指南和1个范围综述的6个疾病数据集,文献总量98 754篇;包括新生儿科、肿瘤外科、罕见病、护理等学科.由指南工作组直接提供,或医生、护士和研究生多次抽样文献建立预纳排标准.5个数据集进行了最多3轮基于预纳排标准的AI筛选后,进入全部文献AI筛选;另1个数据集因总文献量少直接行全部文献AI筛选.在全部文献AI筛选中,2个数据集NPV均为100%,保留文献数量符合研究者预期;4个数据集再调整纳排标准,抽样文献和全部文献NPV均为100%,其中3个数据集保留文献数量符合研究者预期,1个数据集保留文献7 201篇,超出研究者的临床预期,再调整纳排标准,抽样文献和全部文献NPV均为100%且保留文献数量符合研究者预期.以护理数据集(18 793篇文献)为例的时间统计,480 min为1个筛选日,2名研究者1组的筛选和AI筛选共同承担时间4 660 min;AI筛选特征性时间2 776 min,加上共同承担时间总计为15.5个筛选日;2名研究者1组的筛选特征性时间83 629 min,加上共同承担时间总计88 289 min,即184个筛选日,筛选日节约率为(184-15.5)/184×100%=91.6%,绝对节约168.5个筛选日.结论 本研究构建了一套以大语言模型驱动的文献摘要筛选工具及其配套筛选流程方案,适配临床指南和系统评价文献摘要筛选,在错排率为零的基础上,可大幅度减少筛选日.

Background In secondary literature research,screening thousands to tens of thousands of articles through article-by-article review not only gives rise to inconsistency across multiple reviewers,but also entails substantial labor and time costs.Objective To establish an artificial intelligence(AI)-assisted screening workflow through a"human-AI-human collaborative evidence-based medicine practice"model and to provide a reliable technical solution for large-scale literature screening.Design Diagnostic accuracy study.Methods An AI-assisted literature abstract screening tool comprising 4 modules(PICO semantic parsing,evidence-chain semantic reasoning,decision mechanism,and prompt engineering with rule constraints)was developed based on high-performance large language models(LLMs)and built with GPT-5.With the negative predictive value(NPV)as the screening quality-control indicator,the tool was validated using a staged workflow from sampled to full-record literature screening.Main Outcome Measures The NPV of AI screening on both sampled and full-record literature sets were consistently 100%,and the number of records retained was generally in line with researchers'clinical expectations.Results Six disease-specific data sets were included,covering 4 registered guideline categories and 1 scoping review,with a total of 98 754 articles.These data sets spanned multiple disciplines,including neonatology,surgical oncology,rare diseases,and nursing,etc.Multiple approaches were attempted to develop pre-specified eligibility criteria,including criteria provided by guideline working groups and formulated on the basis of sampled articles by physicians,nurses,and graduate students.For 5 data sets,up to 3 rounds of AI screening based on the pre-specified eligibility criteria were conducted before proceeding to AI screening of the full-record literature sets;for 1 data set,AI screening was directly applied to the full-record literature set due to the small number of included studies.In full-record AI screening,2 data sets achieved an NPV of 100%,and the number of retained records met researchers'expectations.For the remaining 4 data sets,the pre-specified eligibility criteria were further refined,after which both sampled and full-record AI screening achieved NPV of 100%.Among these,the number of retained records of 3 data sets consistent with researchers'expectations,whereas 1 retained 7 201 studies,exceeding researchers'clinical expectations.After further refinement of the eligibility criteria,both sampled and full-record AI screening again achieved NPV of 100%,and the number of retained records was then in line with researchers'expectations.Taking the nursing data set(18 793 articles)as an example for time statistics,a screening day was defined as 480 minutes.The time shared by AI screening and by screening of 1 group of 2 researchers was 4 660 min;the AI-specific screening time was 2 776 min,including the shared undertaken time,the total amounts to 15.5 screening days;the researcher-specific screening time of 1 group of 2 researchers was 83 629 min,including the time shared jointly,the total is 88 289 minutes,which equals 184 screening days.AI-assisted screening achieved a screening-day saving rate of(184-15.5)/184×100%=91.6%,with an absolute saving of 168.5 screening days.Conclusion The large language models(LLMs)-driven abstract screening tool and a corresponding screening workflow developed by this study are adaptable to abstract screening for clinical guidelines and systematic reviews,and capable of substantially reducing the number of screening days required on the basis of a false-exclusion rate of zero.

崇青青;班雪;崇庆魏;杨江峰;周美含;张崇凡

南京医科大学附属儿童医院 护理部,南京,210008南京医科大学儿科学院 南京,210008中国电子科技南湖研究院 嘉兴,314009中国电子科技南湖研究院 嘉兴,314009南京大学外国语学院 南京,210023南京医科大学附属儿童医院 临床证据与决策中心,南京,210008

大语言模型文献筛选系统综述

Large language modelsLiterature screeningSystematic review

《中国循证儿科杂志》 2026 (4)

266-272,7

10.3969/j.issn.1673-5501.2026.04.008

评论