
YK
Yuki Kataoka, Masahiro Banno, Michihito Kyo, Shuri Nakao, Tomoo Sato, Shunsuke Taito, Tomohiro Takayama, Takahiro Tsuge, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Ryuhei So, Toshi A. Furukawa
· 1 min read
ResearcharXiv cs.LG
TiAb Review Plugin: A Browser-Based Tool for AI-Assisted Study Selection in Systematic Reviews
arXiv:2604.08602v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Server-based screening tools impose subscription costs, while open-source alternatives require coding skills, and full-text screening has remained outside the scope of no-code open-source tools. We developed TiAb Review Plugin, an open-source Chrome browser extension that provides no-code, serverless artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted study selection covering both title and abstract (T&A) screening and full-text screening. It uses Google Sheets as a shared database and Google Drive as a PDF store, and users supply their own large language model (LLM) API key. For T&A screening, it offers manual review, LLM batch screening, and machine learning (ML) active learning. For full-text screening, it retrieves open-access PDFs from PubMed Central, Europe PMC, Unpaywall, OpenAlex, and publisher pages, supports blinded dual review with structured exclusion reasons and adjudication, optionally obtains an LLM judgment with page-anchored evidence, and computes PRISMA 2020 flow counts. We re-implemented the default ASReview algorithm (TF-IDF with Naive Bayes) in TypeScript and compared it with the Python original using 10-fold cross-validation on six datasets. For LLM T&A screening, we compared 16 parameter configurations on a benchmark dataset, validated the best (Gemini 3.0 Flash, low thinking budget, TopP 0.95) on five public datasets (1,038 to 5,628 records; 0.5% to 2.0% prevalence), and benchmarked nine further models from four developers. The TypeScript classifier produced top-100 rankings identical to ASReview on all six datasets. LLM T&A screening achieved recall of 94% to 100% with precision of 2% to 15%, and work saved over sampling at 95% recall (WSS@95) of 46.3% to 89.3%. No additional model exceeded the 96.1% recall of the reference configuration; the most recent models traded recall for precision. The classification accuracy of the full-text stage has not yet been evaluated.
Original source
This story was published by arXiv cs.LG and written by Yuki Kataoka, Masahiro Banno, Michihito Kyo, Shuri Nakao, Tomoo Sato, Shunsuke Taito, Tomohiro Takayama, Takahiro Tsuge, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Ryuhei So, Toshi A. Furukawa. SyncAI.news shows a preview; the complete article is on the publisher's site.
Read the full story on arxiv.org


