Yiqun T. Chen

Jasmin Han, Janardan Devkota, Joseph Waring et al.

Perceived message effectiveness (PME) by potential intervention end-users is important for selecting and optimizing personalized smoking cessation intervention messages for mobile health (mHealth) platform delivery. This study evaluates whether large language models (LLMs) can accurately predict PME for smoking cessation messages. We evaluated multiple models for predicting PME across three domains: content quality, coping support, and quitting support. The dataset comprised 3010 message ratings (5-point Likert scale) from 301 young adult smokers. We compared (1) supervised learning models trained on labeled data, (2) zero and few-shot LLMs prompted without task-specific fine-tuning, and (3) LLM-based digital twins that incorporate individual characteristics and prior PME histories to generate personalized predictions. Model performance was assessed on three held-out messages per participant using accuracy, Cohen's kappa, and F1. LLM-based digital twins outperformed zero and few-shot LLMs (12 percentage points on average) and supervised baselines (13 percentage points), achieving accuracies of 0.49 (content), 0.45 (coping), and 0.49 (quitting), with directional accuracies of 0.75, 0.66, and 0.70 on a simplified 3-point scale. Digital twin predictions showed greater dispersion across rating categories, indicating improved sensitivity to individual differences. Integrating personal profiles with LLMs captures person-specific differences in PME and outperforms supervised and zero and few-shot approaches. Improved PME prediction may enable more tailored intervention content in mHealth. LLM-based digital twins show potential for supporting personalization of mobile smoking cessation and other health behavior change interventions.

Wenqing Zhang, Trang Nguyen, Elizabeth A. Stuart et al.

Systematic reviews are crucial for synthesizing scientific evidence but remain labor-intensive, especially when extracting detailed methodological information. Large language models (LLMs) offer potential for automating methodological assessments, promising to transform evidence synthesis. Here, using causal mediation analysis as a representative methodological domain, we benchmarked state-of-the-art LLMs against expert human reviewers across 180 full-text scientific articles. Model performance closely correlated with human judgments (accuracy correlation 0.71; F1 correlation 0.97), achieving near-human accuracy on straightforward, explicitly stated methodological criteria. However, accuracy sharply declined on complex, inference-intensive assessments, lagging expert reviewers by up to 15%. Errors commonly resulted from superficial linguistic cues -- for instance, models frequently misinterpreted keywords like "longitudinal" or "sensitivity" as automatic evidence of rigorous methodological approache, leading to systematic misclassifications. Longer documents yielded lower model accuracy, whereas publication year showed no significant effect. Our findings highlight an important pattern for practitioners using LLMs for methods review and synthesis from full texts: current LLMs excel at identifying explicit methodological features but require human oversight for nuanced interpretations. Integrating automated information extraction with targeted expert review thus provides a promising approach to enhance efficiency and methodological rigor in evidence synthesis across diverse scientific fields.