The accuracy of large language models in labelling neurosurgical ‘case-control studies’ and risk of bias assessment: protocol for a study of interrater agreement with human reviewers - Igoli, Joanne; Osunronbi, Temidayo; Olukoya, Olatomiwa; Daniel, Jeremiah Oluwatomi Itodo; Alemenzohu, Hillary; Kanu, Alieu; Kihunyu, Alex Mwangi; Okeleke, Ebuka; Oyoyo, Henry; Shekoni, Oluwatobi; Jesuyajolu, Damilola; Alalade, Andrew F (medRxiv, 2024)
Introduction Accurate identification of study designs and risk of bias (RoB) assessment is crucial for evidence synthesis in research. However, mislabelling of case-control studies (CCS) is prevalent, leading to a downgraded quality of evidence. Large Language Models (LLMs), a form of artificial intelligence, have shown impressive performance in various medical tasks. Still, their utility and application in categorising study designs and assessing RoB needs to be further explored. This study will evaluate the performance of four publicly available LLMs (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Claude 3 Sonnet, Claude 3 Opus) in accurately identifying CCS designs from the neurosurgical literature. Secondly, we will assess the human-LLM interrater agreement for RoB assessment of true CCS.Methods We identified thirty-four top-ranking neurosurgical-focused journals and searched them on PubMed/MEDLINE for manuscripts reported as CCS in the title/abstract. Human reviewers will independently assess study designs and RoB using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The methods sections/full-text articles will be provided to LLMs to determine study designs and assess RoB. Cohen’s kappa will be used to evaluate human-human, human-LLM and LLM-LLM interrater agreement. Logistic regression will be used to assess study characteristics affecting performance. A p-value < 0.05 at a 95% confidence interval will be considered statistically significant.Conclusion If the human-LLM agreement is high, LLMs could become valuable teaching and quality assurance tools for critical appraisal in neurosurgery and other medical fields. This study will contribute to validating LLMs for specialised scientific tasks in evidence synthesis. This could lead to reduced review costs, faster completion, standardisation, and minimal errors in evidence synthesis.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe author(s) received no specific funding for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:N/AI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Not ApplicableNo datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.