Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Bio-SIEVE: Exploring Instruction Tuning Large Language Models for Systematic Review Automation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2308.06610 v1 pith:C6QJAJVX submitted 2023-08-12 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords bio-sievemodelssystematicexploremedicalinstructionlanguagelarge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Medical systematic reviews can be very costly and resource intensive. We explore how Large Language Models (LLMs) can support and be trained to perform literature screening when provided with a detailed set of selection criteria. Specifically, we instruction tune LLaMA and Guanaco models to perform abstract screening for medical systematic reviews. Our best model, Bio-SIEVE, outperforms both ChatGPT and trained traditional approaches, and generalises better across medical domains. However, there remains the challenge of adapting the model to safety-first scenarios. We also explore the impact of multi-task training with Bio-SIEVE-Multi, including tasks such as PICO extraction and exclusion reasoning, but find that it is unable to match single-task Bio-SIEVE's performance. We see Bio-SIEVE as an important step towards specialising LLMs for the biomedical systematic review process and explore its future developmental opportunities. We release our models, code and a list of DOIs to reconstruct our dataset for reproducibility.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LGAR: Zero-Shot LLM-Guided Neural Ranking for Abstract Screening in Systematic Literature Reviews

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LGAR combines zero-shot LLM graded relevance scoring with monoT5 re-ranking to rank abstracts for systematic reviews, outperforming QA-based baselines by 5-10 pp MAP on two benchmarks.

  2. Preliminary Guidelines for Using and Evaluating GenAI Tools to Support Systematic Literature Reviews

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5 of 10

    GUEST gives SE researchers process recommendations for planning, conducting, and reporting GenAI-supported SLRs and independent GenAI tool evaluations under mandatory human oversight.

Pith tools