AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Leveraging Large Language Models for Systematic Literature Review of Disease Spread Models

arXiv:2608.26150v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new opportunities to streamline and potentially automate many research processes, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). This study reports an LLM pipeline development for extracting model-relevant information from 536 peer-reviewed agent-based modeling papers. We compare the results with those of a human-conducted SLR. Our results show paper-level accuracies of approximately 77.95% for GPT-4.1 and 81.67% for GPT-5.0. Field-level accuracy ranges from 32.40% to 100.00%, with more complex or subjective fields performing less reliably. Importantly, we find that agreement between LLMs is a potential indicator of output quality: low agreement may signal hallucinations, whereas high agreement combined with low accuracy may point to noise or errors in the human dataset. Overall, our study provides practical insights into prompt development and highlights both the potential and limitations of using LLMs for full-scale SLRs in the modeling and simulation domain.

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Orhan Yagizer Cinar, Timur Emre Ozkose, Emma Von Hoene, Amira Roess, Taylor Anderson, Hamdi Kavak

-->

[Submitted on 1 Jul 2026]

Title:Leveraging Large Language Models for Systematic Literature Review of Disease Spread Models

View a PDF of the paper titled Leveraging Large Language Models for Systematic Literature Review of Disease Spread Models, by Orhan Yagizer Cinar and 5 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new opportunities to streamline and potentially automate many research processes, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). This study reports an LLM pipeline development for extracting model-relevant information from 536 peer-reviewed agent-based modeling papers. We compare the results with those of a human-conducted SLR. Our results show paper-level accuracies of approximately 77.95% for GPT-4.1 and 81.67% for GPT-5.0. Field-level accuracy ranges from 32.40% to 100.00%, with more complex or subjective fields performing less reliably. Importantly, we find that agreement between LLMs is a potential indicator of output quality: low agreement may signal hallucinations, whereas high agreement combined with low accuracy may point to noise or errors in the human dataset. Overall, our study provides practical insights into prompt development and highlights both the potential and limitations of using LLMs for full-scale SLRs in the modeling and simulation domain.

Comments: To be published in the Winter Simulation Conference 2026

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)

MSC classes: 68T50

ACM classes: I.2.7

Cite as: arXiv:2608.26150 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2608.26150v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.26150

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Hamdi Kavak [view email] [v1] Wed, 1 Jul 2026 15:15:16 UTC (528 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Leveraging Large Language Models for Systematic Literature Review of Disease Spread Models, by Orhan Yagizer Cinar and 5 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-08

Change to browse by:

cs cs.DL cs.IR

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)