Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Artificial intelligence as team member versus manual screening to conduct systematic reviews in medical sciences
0
Zitationen
4
Autoren
2025
Jahr
Abstract
Systematic reviews require substantial time and effort. This study compared the results of conducting reviews by human reviewers with those conducted with Artificial Intelligence (AI). We identified 11 AI tools that could assist in conducting a systematic review. None of the AI tools could retrieve all articles that were detected with a manual search strategy. We identified tools for deduplication but did not evaluate them. AI screening tools assist the human reviewer in presenting the most relevant article on top, which could reduce the number of articles that need to be screened on title and abstract, and on full text. There was a poor inter-rater reliability to evaluate the risk of bias between AI tools and the human reviewers. A summary table created by AI tools differs substantially from manually constructed summary tables. This study highlights the potential of AI tools to support systematic reviews, particularly during screening phases, but not to replace human reviews.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.200 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.051 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.416 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.776 Zit.
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2018 · 5.410 Zit.