Batch Size Effects on Mid‐2025 State‐of‐the‐Art Large Language Model Performance in Automated Title and Abstract Screening

Background: Manual abstract screening is a primary bottleneck in evidence synthesis. Emerging evidence suggests that large language models (LLMs) can automate this task, but their performance when processing multiple references simultaneously in "batches" is uncertain. Objectives: To evaluate the classification performance of four state-of-the-art LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5, and GPT-5 mini) in predicting reference eligibility across a wide range of batch sizes for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Methods: We used a gold-standard dataset of 790 references (93 considered relevant) from a published Cochrane Review on stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction. Using the public APIs for each model, batches of 1 to 790 references were submitted to classify each as "Include" or "Exclude." Performance was assessed using sensitivity and specificity, with internal validation conducted through 10 repeated runs for each model-batch combination. Results: Gemini 2.5 Pro was the most robust model, successfully processing the full 790-reference batch. In contrast, GPT-5 failed at batches ≥400, while GPT-5 mini and Gemini 2.5 Flash failed at the 790-reference batch. Overall, all models demonstrated strong performance within their operational ranges, with two notable exceptions: Gemini 2.5 Flash showed low initial sensitivity at batch 1, and GPT-5 mini's sensitivity degraded at higher batch sizes (from 0.88 at batch 200 to 0.48 at batch 400). At a practical batch size of 100, Gemini 2.5 Pro achieved the highest sensitivity (1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.00), whereas GPT-5 delivered the highest specificity (0.98, 95% CI 0.98-0.98). Conclusion: State-of-the-art LLMs can effectively screen multiple abstracts per prompt, moving beyond inefficient single-reference processing. However, performance is model-dependent, revealing trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, batch size optimization and strategic model selection are important parameters for successful implementation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Published
2026-04-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70082
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

Batch Size Effects on Mid‐2025 State‐of‐the‐Art Large Language Model Performance in Automated Title and Abstract Screening

Petter Fagerberg, Anders Hayden Berg, Natalia Borg, Thomas Lindén et al.
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Batch Size Effects on Mid‐2025 State‐of‐the‐Art Large Language Model Performance in Automated Title and Abstract Screening

Petter Fagerberg, Anders Hayden Berg, Natalia Borg, Thomas Lindén, Anastasia Nyman, Kim Vikhe Patil, Oscar Sallander
article en

Abstract

Background: Manual abstract screening is a primary bottleneck in evidence synthesis. Emerging evidence suggests that large language models (LLMs) can automate this task, but their performance when processing multiple references simultaneously in "batches" is uncertain. Objectives: To evaluate the classification performance of four state-of-the-art LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5, and GPT-5 mini) in predicting reference eligibility across a wide range of batch sizes for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Methods: We used a gold-standard dataset of 790 references (93 considered relevant) from a published Cochrane Review on stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction. Using the public APIs for each model, batches of 1 to 790 references were submitted to classify each as "Include" or "Exclude." Performance was assessed using sensitivity and specificity, with internal validation conducted through 10 repeated runs for each model-batch combination. Results: Gemini 2.5 Pro was the most robust model, successfully processing the full 790-reference batch. In contrast, GPT-5 failed at batches ≥400, while GPT-5 mini and Gemini 2.5 Flash failed at the 790-reference batch. Overall, all models demonstrated strong performance within their operational ranges, with two notable exceptions: Gemini 2.5 Flash showed low initial sensitivity at batch 1, and GPT-5 mini's sensitivity degraded at higher batch sizes (from 0.88 at batch 200 to 0.48 at batch 400). At a practical batch size of 100, Gemini 2.5 Pro achieved the highest sensitivity (1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.00), whereas GPT-5 delivered the highest specificity (0.98, 95% CI 0.98-0.98). Conclusion: State-of-the-art LLMs can effectively screen multiple abstracts per prompt, moving beyond inefficient single-reference processing. However, performance is model-dependent, revealing trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, batch size optimization and strategic model selection are important parameters for successful implementation.

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and MethodsVol. 4(3)
National Board of Health and Welfare (SE), University of Gothenburg (SE)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
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.