TY - JOUR
T1 - Using a large language model (ChatGPT) to assess risk of bias in randomized controlled trials of medical interventions
T2 - protocol for a pilot study of interrater agreement with human reviewers
AU - Rose, Christopher James
AU - Bidonde, Julia
AU - Ringsten, Martin
AU - Glanville, Julie
AU - Berg, Rigmor C
AU - Cooper, Chris
AU - Muller, Ashley Elizabeth
AU - Bergsund, Hans Bugge
AU - Meneses-Echavez, Jose F
AU - Potrebny, Thomas
N1 - © 2025. The Author(s).
PY - 2025/7/31
Y1 - 2025/7/31
N2 - BACKGROUND: Risk of bias (RoB) assessment is an essential part of systematic reviews that requires reading and understanding each eligible trial and RoB tools. RoB assessment is subject to human error and is time-consuming. Machine learning-based tools have been developed to automate RoB assessment using simple models trained on limited corpuses. ChatGPT is a conversational agent based on a large language model (LLM) that was trained on an internet-scale corpus and has demonstrated human-like abilities in multiple areas including healthcare. LLMs might be able to support systematic reviewing tasks such as assessing RoB. We aim to assess interrater agreement in overall (rather than domain-level) RoB assessment between human reviewers and ChatGPT, in randomized controlled trials of interventions within medical interventions.METHODS: We will randomly select 100 individually- or cluster-randomized, parallel, two-arm trials of medical interventions from recent Cochrane systematic reviews that have been assessed using the RoB1 or RoB2 family of tools. We will exclude reviews and trials that were performed under emergency conditions (e.g., COVID-19), as well as public health and welfare interventions. We will use 25 of the trials and human RoB assessments to engineer a ChatGPT prompt for assessing overall RoB, based on trial methods text. We will obtain ChatGPT assessments of RoB for the remaining 75 trials and human assessments. We will then estimate interrater agreement using Cohen's κ.RESULTS: The primary outcome for this study is overall human-ChatGPT interrater agreement. We will report observed agreement with an exact 95% confidence interval, expected agreement under random assessment, Cohen's κ, and a p-value testing the null hypothesis of no difference in agreement. Several other analyses are also planned.CONCLUSIONS: This study is likely to provide the first evidence on interrater agreement between human RoB assessments and those provided by LLMs and will inform subsequent research in this area.
AB - BACKGROUND: Risk of bias (RoB) assessment is an essential part of systematic reviews that requires reading and understanding each eligible trial and RoB tools. RoB assessment is subject to human error and is time-consuming. Machine learning-based tools have been developed to automate RoB assessment using simple models trained on limited corpuses. ChatGPT is a conversational agent based on a large language model (LLM) that was trained on an internet-scale corpus and has demonstrated human-like abilities in multiple areas including healthcare. LLMs might be able to support systematic reviewing tasks such as assessing RoB. We aim to assess interrater agreement in overall (rather than domain-level) RoB assessment between human reviewers and ChatGPT, in randomized controlled trials of interventions within medical interventions.METHODS: We will randomly select 100 individually- or cluster-randomized, parallel, two-arm trials of medical interventions from recent Cochrane systematic reviews that have been assessed using the RoB1 or RoB2 family of tools. We will exclude reviews and trials that were performed under emergency conditions (e.g., COVID-19), as well as public health and welfare interventions. We will use 25 of the trials and human RoB assessments to engineer a ChatGPT prompt for assessing overall RoB, based on trial methods text. We will obtain ChatGPT assessments of RoB for the remaining 75 trials and human assessments. We will then estimate interrater agreement using Cohen's κ.RESULTS: The primary outcome for this study is overall human-ChatGPT interrater agreement. We will report observed agreement with an exact 95% confidence interval, expected agreement under random assessment, Cohen's κ, and a p-value testing the null hypothesis of no difference in agreement. Several other analyses are also planned.CONCLUSIONS: This study is likely to provide the first evidence on interrater agreement between human RoB assessments and those provided by LLMs and will inform subsequent research in this area.
KW - Humans
KW - Bias
KW - Generative Artificial Intelligence
KW - Large Language Models
KW - Machine Learning
KW - Observer Variation
KW - Pilot Projects
KW - Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods
KW - Research Design
KW - Risk Assessment/methods
KW - Systematic Reviews as Topic
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105012266391
U2 - 10.1186/s12874-025-02631-0
DO - 10.1186/s12874-025-02631-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 40745627
SN - 1471-2288
VL - 25
JO - BMC Medical Research Methodology
JF - BMC Medical Research Methodology
IS - 1
M1 - 182
ER -