ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2026
Efficacy of a Large Language Model Data Extraction System in Evidence Reviews for Emerging Infectious Diseases: A Randomized Crossover Trial.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rapid evidence synthesis during emerging infectious and re-emerging disease outbreaks is critical, yet traditional systematic reviews rarely meet urgent timelines. Large language models (LLMs) may accelerate evidence synthesis by extracting data from publications. We compared an LLM-assisted data extraction system with manual extraction. Methods: We conducted a 1:1, open-label, 2-period, randomized crossover trial at the National Center for Global Health and Medicine, a national reference center for emerging infectious diseases in Japan (2025). Five experienced reviewers extracted predefined items from mpox-related articles under 2 conditions: (i) LLM-assisted extraction using OpenAI's o3 model to generate structured summaries and (ii) manual review of PDF files. The primary outcome was task completion time; secondary outcomes were extraction accuracy and adverse events. Mixed-effects models included condition as a fixed effect and participant and paper IDs as random effects. The protocol, source code, and data are available at https://github.com/SRWS-PSG/emerging_infection_24K13518_open. Results: Five evaluators (4 physicians and 1 pharmacist; 6-10 years postgraduation) completed 20 task-level evaluations (LLM, n = 9; no LLM, n = 11). Mean completion time was 27.5 minutes with LLM assistance versus 34.5 minutes without. The LLM-assisted condition was 7.9 minutes faster on average (95% CI -1.5 to 17.3; Conclusions: LLM assistance might reduce data extraction time by ∼23% (7.9 minutes per article; 95% CI -1.5 to 17.3 minutes) with no observed loss of accuracy. Although statistical uncertainty remains, LLM integration may offer practical value for rapid evidence synthesis during public health emergencies as tools and prompting strategies mature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.