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 (Felizardo et al. 2024; Syriani et al. 2024; Huotala et al. 2025), the largest covering 9 LLMs 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 9695-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 , all ) supports as a conservative default. Conclusions: SR-screening evaluations should prioritise 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. Editors and reviewers should require these elements as routine. Extension to full-text screening and data extraction is principled but pending empirical validation.