Evaluating human and LLM screening workflows in a conceptually complex scoping review: Recall--workload trade-offs and run-to-run consistency
Background. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for screening in evidence synthesis, where false negatives can remove relevant studies before full-text assessment. We compared human and LLM title-and-abstract screening workflows in a preregistered study embedded in a conceptually complex scoping review. Methods. After a conservative title-only screen, 1,131 records were screened by one review lead, four trained assistants screening non-overlapping subsets, and seven complete LLM runs using different models and processing configurations, including a nominally identical repeat run. We compared retained workload, operational recall against 316 verified eligible records, agreem...
| Authors | Nikol Figalová, Lynn Huestegge, Anne Böckler-Raettig |
|---|---|
| Primary category | cs.AI |
| Published | 27 August 2026 |
| Last updated at source | 27 August 2026 |
Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.