Scholarlink

<p>This study evaluates the capabilities and limitations of generative AI, specifically ChatGPT, in conducting systematic literature reviews. Using the PRISMA methodology, we analysed 124 recent studies, focusing in-depth on a subset of 40 selected through strict inclusion criteria. Findings show that ChatGPT can enhance efficiency, with reported workload reductions averaging around 60–65%, though accuracy varies widely by task and context. In structured domains such as clinical research, title and abstract screening sensitivity ranged from 80.6% to 96.2%, while precision dropped as low as 4.6% in more interpretive tasks. Hallucination rates reached 91%, underscoring the need for careful oversight. Comparative analysis shows that AI matches or exceeds human performance in simple screening but underperforms in nuanced synthesis. To support more reliable integration, we introduce the Systematic Research Processing Framework (SRPF) as a guiding model for hybrid AI–human collaboration in research review workflows.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Can generative AI reliably synthesise literature? exploring hallucination issues in ChatGPT

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月21日

查看全文
  • Amr Adel,
  • Noor Alani

摘要

This study evaluates the capabilities and limitations of generative AI, specifically ChatGPT, in conducting systematic literature reviews. Using the PRISMA methodology, we analysed 124 recent studies, focusing in-depth on a subset of 40 selected through strict inclusion criteria. Findings show that ChatGPT can enhance efficiency, with reported workload reductions averaging around 60–65%, though accuracy varies widely by task and context. In structured domains such as clinical research, title and abstract screening sensitivity ranged from 80.6% to 96.2%, while precision dropped as low as 4.6% in more interpretive tasks. Hallucination rates reached 91%, underscoring the need for careful oversight. Comparative analysis shows that AI matches or exceeds human performance in simple screening but underperforms in nuanced synthesis. To support more reliable integration, we introduce the Systematic Research Processing Framework (SRPF) as a guiding model for hybrid AI–human collaboration in research review workflows.