{"ID":2841019,"CreatedAt":"2026-06-01T04:54:23.091178241Z","UpdatedAt":"2026-06-01T04:54:23.091178241Z","DeletedAt":null,"paper_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.12635","arxiv_id":"2511.12635","title":"LLM4SCREENLIT: Recommendations on Assessing the Performance of Large Language Models for Screening Literature in Systematic Reviews","abstract":"Context: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to screen literature for systematic reviews (SRs), but the standard confusion-matrix metrics used to evaluate them can mislead under the imbalanced, cost-asymmetric conditions of screening. Objective: We develop and justify LLM4SCREENLIT-practical recommendations for researchers conducting LLM-screening evaluations and for editors and reviewers assessing such studies-differentiated by study type (retrospective benchmarking vs deployment for a specific SR). Method: Using Delgado-Chaves et al. (2025), an 18-LLM benchmark across three biomedical SRs, as a motivating example, we reviewed 28 additional papers and extracted their reported metrics. We propose a Weighted Matthews Correlation Coefficient (WMCC) that integrates MCC's chance-correction with asymmetric misclassification costs, and validated it on three software-engineering (SE) reanalyses, the largest covering 9 LLMs x 24 SE secondary studies (34,528 articles). Results: Across the 29 papers, only 10% reported MCC, only 24% reported full confusion matrices, and none of the five papers claiming workload savings priced false-negative cost. In the largest SE reanalysis, MCC and WMCC disagree on the best LLM in 55% of evaluable studies; in the most striking 9,695-article SE study, the Accuracy-best LLM loses 63.3% of relevant evidence (Lost Evidence), the MCC-best 43.9%, but the WMCC-best only 5.8%. Sensitivity analysis (median crossover at w~=2.7, all \u003c7) supports w=10 as a conservative default. Conclusions: SR-screening evaluations should prioritize Lost Evidence and use cost-sensitive WMCC alongside MCC for ranking. Reporting must include the full confusion matrix and treat unclassifiable outputs as positives requiring human review. Designs should be leakage-aware, with non-LLM baselines when the study aims to inform SR practice and labels are available.","short_abstract":"Context: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to screen literature for systematic reviews (SRs), but the standard confusion-matrix metrics used to evaluate them can mislead under the imbalanced, cost-asymmetric conditions of screening. Objective: We develop and justify LLM4SCREENLIT-practical recommendati...","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.12635","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.12635v2","authors":"[\"Lech Madeyski\",\"Barbara Kitchenham\",\"Martin Shepperd\"]","published":"2025-11-16T15:04:50Z","proceeding":"cs.SE","tasks":"[\"cs.SE\",\"cs.AI\",\"cs.LG\"]","methods":"[\"Large Language Model\",\"Language Model\"]","has_code":false}