← Resource library

Research case

Can GPT-4 replace humans in systematic reviews? (Khraisha et al., Research Synthesis Methods 2024)

A preregistered study tests GPT-4 for title/abstract screening, full-text review and data extraction across languages and literature types.

What is reported

After accounting for chance agreement and imbalance, performance ranged from none to moderate in many settings; full-text screening with reliable prompts performed much better.

Before you use it

The authors urge substantial caution; good results depended on prompt quality and did not hold across stages or languages.

Sources and review

Original source ↗

Source checked · Not tested by this site

Checked the public abstract and bibliographic record. Results describe the authors' study, not a replication by this site.

Evidence / source record ↗

License and reuse

No license has been recorded. Check the source’s license before reusing code, models or data.

A license note is not a license audit. Open source does not guarantee free hosting, model access or commercial reuse.

Related resources