metaScreener: A Plugin-Based Desktop Application for Human-in-the-Loop Systematic Literature Screening
References
- Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):
e012545 . DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545 - O’Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, Miwa M, Ananiadou S. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4(1):5. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-5
- Guo E, Gupta M, Deng J, Park Y-J, Paget M, Naugler C. Automated paper screening for clinical reviews using large language models: Data analysis study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2024;26:
e48996 . DOI: 10.2196/48996 - Syriani E, David I, Kumar G. Assessing the ability of ChatGPT to screen articles for systematic reviews. arXiv preprint. 2023; arXiv:2307.06464.
- Khraisha Q, Put S, Kappenberg J, Warraitch A, Hadfield K. Can large language models replace humans in systematic reviews? Evaluating GPT-4’s efficacy in screening and extracting data from peer-reviewed and grey literature in multiple languages. Research Synthesis Methods. 2024;15(4):616–626. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1715
- Matsui K, Utsumi T, Aoki Y, Maruki T, Takeshima M, Takaesu Y. Human-comparable sensitivity of large language models in identifying eligible studies through title and abstract screening: 3-layer strategy using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 for systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2024;26:
e52758 . DOI: 10.2196/52758 - Delgado-Chaves FM, Jennings MJ, Atalaia A, Wolff J, Horvath R, Mamdouh ZM, Baumbach J, Baumbach L. Transforming literature screening: The emerging role of large language models in systematic reviews. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2025;122(2):
e2411962122 . DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2411962122 - Lieberum J-L, Toews M, Metzendorf M-I, Heilmeyer F, Siemens W, Haverkamp C, Böhringer D, Meerpohl JJ, Eisele-Metzger A. Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use — a scoping review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2025;181:111746. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111746
- Kwok W, Dallant T, Martin G, Fournier G, Kervennic B, Pingeon O, Dechartres A. Systematic reviews on the same topic are common but often fail to meet key methodological standards: a research-on-research study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2026;189:112018. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.112018
- van Dijk SHB, Brusse-Keizer MGJ, Bucsán CC, van der Palen J, Doggen CJM, Lenferink A. Artificial intelligence in systematic reviews: promising when appropriately used. BMJ Open. 2023;13(7):
e072254 . DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072254 - Hong C.
MetaScreener: AI-powered tool for efficient abstract and PDF screening in systematic reviews . GitHub repository. 2025; Web-based screening tool by an unrelated author group; same software name. URLhttps://github.com/ChaokunHong/MetaScreener . - Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1990;43(6):543–549. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-L
- Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR. High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1990;43(6):551–558. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-M
- Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. DOI: 10.2307/2529310
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.730 | Journal eISSN: 2049-9647
Language: English
Page range: 45 - 45
Submitted on: Mar 31, 2026
Accepted on: May 20, 2026
Published on: Jun 5, 2026
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
© 2026 Alejandro Reyes-Consuelo, Jocelyne Kiss, Julien Voisin, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.