LLM4SCREENLIT: Recommendations on Assessing the Performance of Large Language Models for Screening Literature in Systematic Reviews
Context: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to screen literature for systematic reviews (SRs), but the standard confusion-matrix metrics used to evaluate them can mislead under the imbalanced, cost-asymmetric conditions of screening. Objective: We develop and justify LLM4SCREENLIT-practical recommendations for researchers conducting LLM-screening evaluations and for editors and reviewers assessing such studies-differentiated by study type (retrospective benchmarking vs deployment for a specific SR). Method: Using Delgado-Chaves et al. (2025), an 18-LLM benchmark across three biomedical SRs, as a motivating example, we reviewed 28 additional papers and extracted their reported metrics. We propose a Weighted Matthews Correlation Coefficient (WMCC) that integrates MCC's chance-correction with asymmetric misclassification costs, and validated it on three software-engineering (SE) reanalyses, the largest covering 9 LLMs x 24 SE secondary studies (34,528 articles). Results: Across the 29 papers, only 10% reported MCC, only 24% reported full confusion matrices, and none of the five papers claiming workload savings priced false-negative cost. In the largest SE reanalysis, MCC and WMCC disagree on the best LLM in 55% of evaluable studies; in the most striking 9,695-article SE study, the Accuracy-best LLM loses 63.3% of relevant evidence (Lost Evidence), the MCC-best 43.9%, but the WMCC-best only 5.8%. Sensitivity analysis (median crossover at w~=2.7, all <7) supports w=10 as a conservative default. Conclusions: SR-screening evaluations should prioritize Lost Evidence and use cost-sensitive WMCC alongside MCC for ranking. Reporting must include the full confusion matrix and treat unclassifiable outputs as positives requiring human review. Designs should be leakage-aware, with non-LLM baselines when the study aims to inform SR practice and labels are available.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Uncertainty Quantification and Decomposition for LLM-based Recommendation
Despite the widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) for recommendation, we demonstrate that LLMs often exhibit uncertainty in their recommendations. To ensure the trustworthy use of LLMs in generating recomme…
Uncertainty QuantificationWhere Are We? Evaluating LLM Performance on African Languages
Africa's rich linguistic heritage remains underrepresented in NLP, largely due to historical policies that favor foreign languages and create significant data inequities. In this paper, we integrate theoretical insights …
DiversityFiltering Discomforting Recommendations with Large Language Models
Personalized algorithms can inadvertently expose users to discomforting recommendations, potentially triggering negative consequences. The subjectivity of discomfort and the black-box nature of these algorithms make it c…
Language ModelingLanguage ModellingLarge Language ModelAI Agents for Sustainable SMEs: A Green ESG Assessment Framework
This study presents a novel, AI-driven framework for assessing Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance in European small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). An initial phase established expert-validated …
Improving and Evaluating the Detection of Fragmentation in News Recommendations with the Clustering of News Story Chains
News recommender systems play an increasingly influential role in shaping information access within democratic societies. However, tailoring recommendations to users' specific interests can result in the divergence of in…
ClusteringRecommendation Systems