Reassessing Large Language Model Boolean Query Generation for Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews are comprehensive literature reviews that address highly focused research questions and represent the highest form of evidence in medicine. A critical step in this process is the development of complex Boolean queries to retrieve relevant literature. Given the difficulty of manually constructing these queries, recent efforts have explored Large Language Models (LLMs) to assist in their formulation. One of the first studies, Wang et al. [21], investigated ChatGPT for this task, followed by Staudinger et al. [14], which evaluated multiple LLMs in a reproducibility study. However, the latter overlooked several key aspects of the original work, including (i) validation of generated queries (ii) output formatting constraints, and (iii) selection of examples for chainof- thought (Guided) prompting. As a result, its findings diverged significantly from the original study. In this work, we systematically reproduce both studies while addressing these overlooked factors. Our results show that query effectiveness varies significantly across models and prompt designs, with guided query formulation benefiting from well-chosen seed studies. Overall, prompt design and model selection are key drivers of successful query formulation. Our findings provide a clearer understanding of LLMs' potential in Boolean query generation and highlight the importance of modeland prompt-specific optimisations. The complex nature of systematic reviews adds to challenges in both developing and reproducing methods but also highlights the importance of reproducibility studies in this domain.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-07-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3726302.3730329
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.61
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reassessing Large Language Model Boolean Query Generation for Systematic Reviews

Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, Bevan Koopman, Shuai Wang
2 citations
Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
1.61
article

Reassessing Large Language Model Boolean Query Generation for Systematic Reviews

Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, Bevan Koopman, Shuai Wang
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Systematic reviews are comprehensive literature reviews that address highly focused research questions and represent the highest form of evidence in medicine. A critical step in this process is the development of complex Boolean queries to retrieve relevant literature. Given the difficulty of manually constructing these queries, recent efforts have explored Large Language Models (LLMs) to assist in their formulation. One of the first studies, Wang et al. [21], investigated ChatGPT for this task, followed by Staudinger et al. [14], which evaluated multiple LLMs in a reproducibility study. However, the latter overlooked several key aspects of the original work, including (i) validation of generated queries (ii) output formatting constraints, and (iii) selection of examples for chainof- thought (Guided) prompting. As a result, its findings diverged significantly from the original study. In this work, we systematically reproduce both studies while addressing these overlooked factors. Our results show that query effectiveness varies significantly across models and prompt designs, with guided query formulation benefiting from well-chosen seed studies. Overall, prompt design and model selection are key drivers of successful query formulation. Our findings provide a clearer understanding of LLMs' potential in Boolean query generation and highlight the importance of modeland prompt-specific optimisations. The complex nature of systematic reviews adds to challenges in both developing and reproducing methods but also highlights the importance of reproducibility studies in this domain.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU), The University of Queensland (AU), University of Tübingen (DE)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
1.61
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.