Yiqun T. Chen

Yiqun T. Chen, Moran Guo, Shengy Li

Modern studies increasingly leverage outcomes predicted by machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI/ML) models, and recent work, such as prediction-powered inference (PPI), has developed valid downstream statistical inference procedures. However, classical power and sample size formulas do not readily account for these predictions. In this work, we tackle a simple yet practical question: given a new AI/ML model with high predictive power, how many labeled samples are needed to achieve a desired level of statistical power? We derive closed-form power formulas by characterizing the asymptotic variance of the PPI estimator and applying Wald test inversion to obtain the required labeled sample size. Our results cover widely used settings including two-sample comparisons and risk measures in 2x2 tables. We find that a useful rule of thumb is that the reduction in required labeled samples relative to classical designs scales roughly with the R2 between the predictions and the ground truth. Our analytical formulas are validated using Monte Carlo simulations, and we illustrate the framework in three contemporary biomedical applications spanning single-cell transcriptomics, clinical blood pressure measurement, and dermoscopy imaging. We provide our software as an R package and online calculators at https://github.com/yiqunchen/pppower.

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.

Yiqun T. Chen, Tyler H. McCormick, Li Liu et al.

Verbal autopsy (VA) is a critical tool for estimating causes of death in resource-limited settings where medical certification is unavailable. This study presents LA-VA, a proof-of-concept pipeline that combines Large Language Models (LLMs) with traditional algorithmic approaches and embedding-based classification for improved cause-of-death prediction. Using the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) dataset across three age categories (Adult: 7,580; Child: 1,960; Neonate: 2,438), we evaluate multiple approaches: GPT-5 predictions, LCVA baseline, text embeddings, and meta-learner ensembles. Our results demonstrate that GPT-5 achieves the highest individual performance with average test site accuracies of 48.6% (Adult), 50.5% (Child), and 53.5% (Neonate), outperforming traditional statistical machine learning baselines by 5-10%. Our findings suggest that simple off-the-shelf LLM-assisted approaches could substantially improve verbal autopsy accuracy, with important implications for global health surveillance in low-resource settings.