Kaitlyn Hair

Valerie Bürger, Marlie Besouw, Jana Fehr et al.

Meta-research and Trustworthy AI (TAI) share common goals, namely improving evidence, robustness, and transparency, yet there is very little interplay between the two fields. To investigate the potential benefits of closer collaboration between the domains of TAI in healthcare and meta-research, we convened an interdisciplinary workshop funded by the Volkswagen Foundation in February 2025. The workshop aimed to collaboratively examine key tensions in translating AI ethics principles into practice and to identify potential solutions informed by meta-research approaches. A Design Thinking-informed co-creation approach was followed by an inductive descriptive analysis of the outputs. Our results demonstrate how meta-research can offer concrete contributions to address pressing challenges of TAI in healthcare. These challenges include achieving robustness, reproducibility, and replicability; late-stage development and the integration of AI into clinical practice; the selection of appropriate evaluation metrics; specific AI-related challenges in preclinical and biomedical research; gaps of transparency in medical AI, as well as the need for improved conceptual clarity and AI literacy among stakeholders. Finally, we offer a catalog of ideas and roadmap for future research to inform scholars in both fields on existing interconnections and serve as a foundation for guiding future interdisciplinary efforts.

Lena Schmidt, Kaitlyn Hair, Sergio Graziosi et al.

This paper describes a rapid feasibility study of using GPT-4, a large language model (LLM), to (semi)automate data extraction in systematic reviews. Despite the recent surge of interest in LLMs there is still a lack of understanding of how to design LLM-based automation tools and how to robustly evaluate their performance. During the 2023 Evidence Synthesis Hackathon we conducted two feasibility studies. Firstly, to automatically extract study characteristics from human clinical, animal, and social science domain studies. We used two studies from each category for prompt-development; and ten for evaluation. Secondly, we used the LLM to predict Participants, Interventions, Controls and Outcomes (PICOs) labelled within 100 abstracts in the EBM-NLP dataset. Overall, results indicated an accuracy of around 80%, with some variability between domains (82% for human clinical, 80% for animal, and 72% for studies of human social sciences). Causal inference methods and study design were the data extraction items with the most errors. In the PICO study, participants and intervention/control showed high accuracy (>80%), outcomes were more challenging. Evaluation was done manually; scoring methods such as BLEU and ROUGE showed limited value. We observed variability in the LLMs predictions and changes in response quality. This paper presents a template for future evaluations of LLMs in the context of data extraction for systematic review automation. Our results show that there might be value in using LLMs, for example as second or third reviewers. However, caution is advised when integrating models such as GPT-4 into tools. Further research on stability and reliability in practical settings is warranted for each type of data that is processed by the LLM.