4.4 Review

Are ChatGPT and large language models the answer to bringing us closer to systematic review automation?

期刊

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02243-z

关键词

Artificial intelligence; Large language models; Systematic review; Methodology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this commentary, the researchers discuss the potential use of ChatGPT in systematic reviews. They highlight the current limitations of the technology and the need for further development. Although ChatGPT shows promise in aiding in SR-related tasks, caution should be exercised by non-content experts in using these tools due to the presence of erroneous outputs.
In this commentary, we discuss ChatGPT and our perspectives on its utility to systematic reviews (SRs) through the appropriateness and applicability of its responses to SR related prompts. The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies leave many wondering about the current capabilities, limitations, and opportunities for integration AI into scientific endeavors. Large language models (LLM)-such as ChatGPT, designed by OpenAI-have recently gained widespread attention with their ability to respond to various prompts in a natural-sounding way. Systematic reviews (SRs) utilize secondary data and often require many months and substantial financial resources to complete, making them attractive grounds for developing AI-assistive technologies. On February 6, 2023, PICO Portal developers hosted a webinar to explore ChatGPT's responses to tasks related to SR methodology. Our experience from exploring the responses of ChatGPT suggest that while ChatGPT and LLMs show some promise for aiding in SR-related tasks, the technology is in its infancy and needs much development for such applications. Furthermore, we advise that great caution should be taken by non-content experts in using these tools due to much of the output appearing, at a high level, to be valid, while much is erroneous and in need of active vetting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据