arXiv preprint ·
PRISMA-LLM: An Empirical Reporting Framework for AI-Assisted Systematic Reviews
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) and AI-enabled software increasingly participate in systematic-review decisions, yet the information needed to audit these workflows is reported inconsistently. We analyze SciLitBench, a corpus of 888 review-automation papers with 14,726 annotations, to characterize changes in methods, review-stage use, evaluation and reported limitations. Automation has shifted toward LLM- and software-facing workflows, including stages that can alter the evidence base. Since 2023, 38.0% of software/product papers reported no evaluation, compared with 9.3% of LLM papers. Reporting coverage increased with LLM workflow complexity, yet 52% of positive-only LLM evaluations still reported an unmet reliability or performance requirement. From these patterns, we introduce PRISMA-LLM, an empirically grounded framework separating implementation disclosure from consequence-sensitive evaluation and limitation reporting.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Software Engineering
What a Random Draw from the MCP Registry Contains, and What Tool-Use Benchmarks Contain Instead
ParaRecover: A Process-Level Benchmark for Error Localization and Recovery in Parallel Tool-Use Agents
Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows
Confidence-Gated Transductive Test Generation for Code Reranking
DeFiFusion: Combining Transaction Events with Smart Contracts to Detect Price Manipulation Attacks
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.