There is a newer version of the record available.

Published February 19, 2025 | Version 1

Large Language Models for Data Extraction in Toxicology: Implications and Lessons Learned from the Clinical Evidence Domain

  • 1. ROR icon Newcastle University
  • 2. ROR icon National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
  • 3. ROR icon National Institutes of Health
  • 4. Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health
  • 5. ROR icon University College London

Description

A living review of automated data extraction methods for clinical systematic reviews identified 76 papers up to the end of 2022 describing unique extraction algorithms and assessed their methods and quality of reporting. The current in-progress update for 2024 observed a rapid increase in papers; it now includes 117 papers, of which 17 employ Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate data extraction from randomized controlled trials. In this commentary, we describe findings from the analysis of these LLM automation papers and discuss parallels to the field of automated data extraction in toxicology. We describe the evaluation strategies and reporting observed in LLM publications and focus on inconsistencies and potential pitfalls that may bias how the performance of LLMs is perceived by those likely to apply them to support systematic reviews. We then discuss potential applications of LLMs in evidence mapping and good practice in the reporting of LLM automation methods – based on a checklist and guideline developed during the 2023 Evidence Synthesis hackathon in Newcastle (UK).

Files

AppendixA.zip

Files (529.4 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:7cf04481fff76f5fe20b13ad80659fcd
148.0 kB Preview Download
md5:5c49b49411dfcbbbdbff6b628145fe78
381.4 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Dates

Submitted
2025-02-19
Pre-print for submission to Evidence-Based Toxicology