William Thorne

Ambrose Robinson, William Thorne, Ben P. Wu et al.

Medical systematic reviews can be very costly and resource intensive. We explore how Large Language Models (LLMs) can support and be trained to perform literature screening when provided with a detailed set of selection criteria. Specifically, we instruction tune LLaMA and Guanaco models to perform abstract screening for medical systematic reviews. Our best model, Bio-SIEVE, outperforms both ChatGPT and trained traditional approaches, and generalises better across medical domains. However, there remains the challenge of adapting the model to safety-first scenarios. We also explore the impact of multi-task training with Bio-SIEVE-Multi, including tasks such as PICO extraction and exclusion reasoning, but find that it is unable to match single-task Bio-SIEVE's performance. We see Bio-SIEVE as an important step towards specialising LLMs for the biomedical systematic review process and explore its future developmental opportunities. We release our models, code and a list of DOIs to reconstruct our dataset for reproducibility.

William Thorne, Rupert Shepherd, Diana Maynard

We present a reconstruction of UKRI's Gateway to Research (GtR) database that links funding opportunities to their resulting project proposals through panel meeting outcomes. Unlike existing work that focuses primarily on funded projects and their outcomes, we close the complete funding lifecycle by integrating three previously disconnected data sources: the GtR project database, UKRI funding opportunities, and competitive funding decision records across UKRI's research councils. We describe the technical challenges of data collection, including navigating inconsistent publication formats and restricted access to panel decisions. The resulting dataset enables a holistic interrogation of the entire funding process, from opportunity announcement to research outcomes. We release the database and associated code.

William Thorne, Joseph James, Yang Wang et al.

As AI-assisted grant proposals outpace manual review capacity in a kind of ``Malthusian trap'' for the research ecosystem, this paper investigates the capabilities and limitations of LLM-based grant reviewing for high-stakes evaluation. Using six EPSRC proposals, we develop a perturbation-based framework probing LLM sensitivity across six quality axes: funding, timeline, competency, alignment, clarity, and impact. We compare three review architectures: single-pass review, section-by-section analysis, and a 'Council of Personas' ensemble emulating expert panels. The section-level approach significantly outperforms alternatives in both detection rate and scoring reliability, while the computationally expensive council method performs no better than baseline. Detection varies substantially by perturbation type, with alignment issues readily identified but clarity flaws largely missed by all systems. Human evaluation shows LLM feedback is largely valid but skewed toward compliance checking over holistic assessment. We conclude that current LLMs may provide supplementary value within EPSRC review but exhibit high variability and misaligned review priorities. We release our code and any non-protected data.

Yida Mu, Ben P. Wu, William Thorne et al.

Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited impressive language understanding and the capacity to generate responses that follow specific prompts. However, due to the computational demands associated with training these models, their applications often adopt a zero-shot setting. In this paper, we evaluate the zero-shot performance of two publicly accessible LLMs, ChatGPT and OpenAssistant, in the context of six Computational Social Science classification tasks, while also investigating the effects of various prompting strategies. Our experiments investigate the impact of prompt complexity, including the effect of incorporating label definitions into the prompt; use of synonyms for label names; and the influence of integrating past memories during foundation model training. The findings indicate that in a zero-shot setting, current LLMs are unable to match the performance of smaller, fine-tuned baseline transformer models (such as BERT-large). Additionally, we find that different prompting strategies can significantly affect classification accuracy, with variations in accuracy and F1 scores exceeding 10\%.