Evidence Hub

AI ‐Augmented Search for Systematic Reviews: A Comparative Analysis

Valerie Lookingbill, Vedant Khandelwal, Kaushik Roy, Ritvik Garimella, Harshul Surana, Amit Sheth

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

ABSTRACT Researchers are increasingly seeking to automate systematic review workflows to reduce time and labor. However, AI‐generated search strategies often contain errors that can significantly undermine the reliability of the evidence. To evaluate the relevancy and reproducibility of automated search strategies, we conducted a comparative analysis between a human‐in‐the‐loop system with a neurosymbolic AI framework (i.e., NeuroLit Navigator) and three AI systems that primarily rely on generative language models: Scite, Consensus, and Perplexity. Results showed that through an iterative human‐in‐the‐loop approach, NeuroLit Navigator produced more precise and focused search strategies aligned with domain‐specific terminologies compared to commercial LLM‐based systems, which presented issues such as lack of reproducibility and interpretability. This study highlights the potential of human‐AI collaboration in systematic review workflows, suggesting that AI should augment, rather than replace, librarian expertise. Our findings contribute to the growing field of human‐centered AI by providing a model for designing AI systems in information‐intensive domains.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free