Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the reliability of large language models (LLMs) in title-abstract screening for systematic reviews (SRs) by analyzing over 1,000 primary study papers across six software engineering SRs. Through a qualitative examination of LLM-human disagreements, the authors identify recurring issues such as boundary ambiguity, keyword overemphasization, and incorrect topic inference that contribute to mixed accuracy results. The study culminates in actionable recommendations for improving LLM deployment in SRs, including validating semantic understanding and utilizing multiple models for screening tasks.
LLMs exhibit significant disagreement with human experts due to identifiable issues, revealing critical gaps in their reliability for systematic review screening.
Several studies have examined the use of large language models (LLMs) for title-abstract screening in systematic reviews (SRs), reporting mixed accuracy. However, questions of reliability remain largely unaddressed. In this study, we go beyond quantitative LLM-human agreement metrics and qualitatively investigate how and why LLMs fail. We also propose actionable recommendations. We analyzed disagreements between LLMs and researchers across six software engineering SRs and over 1,000 primary study papers. For each SR, papers were screened independently by human experts and LLMs in zero-shot mode, resulting in Kappa values ranging from 0.52 to 0.77. Qualitative analysis suggests that human-LLM disagreement results from recurring, identifiable causes, such as boundary ambiguity in key terms, keyword overemphasization, and incorrect topic inference. Based on these findings, we propose recommendations such as validating semantic understanding before deployment, running multiple LLMs, and focusing validation efforts on borderline cases. Future studies are needed to validate the impact of our recommendations, and community efforts are needed to develop normative guidelines on LLM usage in SRs.
