Human-AI collaboration enhances the performance of large language models in risk of bias assessment

Risk of bias (RoB) assessment is essential in systematic reviews and clinical guideline development. Current manual processes are complex, inefficient, and inconsistent. Large language models (LLMs) have potential to assist RoB assessment, but their standalone performance is limited. Efficient integration of LLMs with human judgment remains a challenge. A high-quality dataset of medical literature was developed, encompassing seven bias domains as defined by the Cochrane RoB 1.0 tool. Using structured prompt engineering, two LLMs, DeepSeek V3 and Qwen-plus, were compared on three-class bias risk classification tasks. Three Human-AI collaboration modes were developed: (M1) Evidence Extraction Mode—human judgment based solely on LLM-extracted evidence; (M2) Reasoning Support Mode—combining LLM extracted evidence with reasoning explanations; (M3) Disagreement Trigger Mode—human intervention triggered by model disagreement. Accuracy and human intervention rates were used to evaluate performance and efficiency. We randomly sampled 300 instances per domain from the dataset and evaluated both LLMs using the same structured prompting approach. DeepSeek V3 outperformed Qwen-plus in accuracy in four of seven bias domains, demonstrating superior overall judgment. Model accuracy ranged from 0.403 to 0.777 across domains. In Human-AI collaboration, 60 samples per domain were evaluated with human involvement. M1 showed relatively limited performance in both accuracy and intervention rate; M2 achieved the highest accuracy in most tasks; M3 markedly reduced intervention rates. Accuracy under M2 and M3 ranged from 0.633 to 0.900. Incorporating LLM reasoning improved consistency in human judgments. Disagreement Trigger Mode exhibited high cost-effectiveness in structured and moderate-reasoning tasks, enhancing assessment efficiency, while Reasoning Support Mode was more stable and practical for open-ended and highly subjective tasks. LLMs (like DeepSeek V3 and Qwen-plus) cannot yet replace human RoB assessment but well-designed Human-AI collaboration can improve accuracy and reduce manual workload.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2026-01-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02763-3
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Human-AI collaboration enhances the performance of large language models in risk of bias assessment

Meng Wu, Yingyin Li, Jiao Li, Fengchun Yang
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Human-AI collaboration enhances the performance of large language models in risk of bias assessment

Meng Wu, Yingyin Li, Jiao Li, Fengchun Yang
article en

Abstract

Risk of bias (RoB) assessment is essential in systematic reviews and clinical guideline development. Current manual processes are complex, inefficient, and inconsistent. Large language models (LLMs) have potential to assist RoB assessment, but their standalone performance is limited. Efficient integration of LLMs with human judgment remains a challenge. A high-quality dataset of medical literature was developed, encompassing seven bias domains as defined by the Cochrane RoB 1.0 tool. Using structured prompt engineering, two LLMs, DeepSeek V3 and Qwen-plus, were compared on three-class bias risk classification tasks. Three Human-AI collaboration modes were developed: (M1) Evidence Extraction Mode—human judgment based solely on LLM-extracted evidence; (M2) Reasoning Support Mode—combining LLM extracted evidence with reasoning explanations; (M3) Disagreement Trigger Mode—human intervention triggered by model disagreement. Accuracy and human intervention rates were used to evaluate performance and efficiency. We randomly sampled 300 instances per domain from the dataset and evaluated both LLMs using the same structured prompting approach. DeepSeek V3 outperformed Qwen-plus in accuracy in four of seven bias domains, demonstrating superior overall judgment. Model accuracy ranged from 0.403 to 0.777 across domains. In Human-AI collaboration, 60 samples per domain were evaluated with human involvement. M1 showed relatively limited performance in both accuracy and intervention rate; M2 achieved the highest accuracy in most tasks; M3 markedly reduced intervention rates. Accuracy under M2 and M3 ranged from 0.633 to 0.900. Incorporating LLM reasoning improved consistency in human judgments. Disagreement Trigger Mode exhibited high cost-effectiveness in structured and moderate-reasoning tasks, enhancing assessment efficiency, while Reasoning Support Mode was more stable and practical for open-ended and highly subjective tasks. LLMs (like DeepSeek V3 and Qwen-plus) cannot yet replace human RoB assessment but well-designed Human-AI collaboration can improve accuracy and reduce manual workload.

BMC Medical Research MethodologyVol. 26(1)
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN), Tongji Hospital (CN), Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 84%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
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.