<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.f3b1fba60ec7970c.css">

Evaluating Large Language Models for Automated Evidence Synthesis in Neuroimaging AI: A Multi-Model Benchmark

dc.contributor.authorSulaimanov, Umid
dc.contributor.authorSanlier, Nafiye
dc.contributor.authorMoniri, Ariorad
dc.contributor.authorDemir, Behman
dc.contributor.authorSerikkanov, Yerkebulan
dc.contributor.authorBayramoglu, Ahmed Rasim
dc.contributor.authorAl-Jebur, Maryam Sabah
dc.contributor.authorSanlier, Melih Yucel
dc.contributor.authorErginoglu, Ugur
dc.contributor.authorOtles, Erkin
dc.contributor.authorAmmanuel, Simon Gashaw
dc.contributor.authorKeles, Abdullah
dc.contributor.authorErginoglu, Ufuk
dc.contributor.authorBaskaya, Mustafa Kemal
dc.date.accessioned2026-11-05T11:08:29Z
dc.date.issued2026
dc.description.abstractBackground: Data extraction for systematic reviews is highly resource-intensive. This study evaluated four frontier large language models (LLMs) on complex structured metadata extraction from specialized neuroimaging artificial intelligence (AI) literature to determine their performance in automated evidence synthesis. Methods: We compared Google Gemini 3 Pro Preview, Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5, Perplexity Sonar Pro, and OpenAI GPT 5.2. Using a standardized prompt, each model extracted 22 variables from 91 peer-reviewed neuroimaging AI articles. The variables were stratified into low-, medium-, and high-complexity tiers. The performance was measured via the exact-match accuracy against a consensus-based expert ground truth. Results: The overall exact-match accuracy was moderate. Gemini 3 Pro Preview achieved the highest overall rate (56.4%), followed by Sonar Pro (52.1%), Claude Opus 4.5 (51.3%), and GPT 5.2 (46.5%). Gemini significantly outperformed all other models (p < 0.001). The performance declined dramatically as the variable complexity increased. Across models, the accuracy was 88.9-92.9% for low-complexity categorical fields, 47.0-63.3% for medium-complexity text extraction, and 2.7-15.5% for high-complexity variables requiring clinical judgment or multi-section synthesis. The most common type of error was misclassification. All four models scored 0% on the main performance metric, but this reflected a representational mismatch with the ground truth rather than extraction failure, indicating that the exact-match accuracy underestimates the true semantic performance. Conclusions: Frontier LLMs can effectively automate the retrieval of simple categorical data, but have serious difficulties with methodological variables that are complex. Although extraction can be fully automated for low-complexity fields, human review remains essential for context-dependent variables that require clinical judgment.
dc.description.issue11
dc.description.pages4230
dc.description.volume15
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/jcm15114230
dc.identifier.issn2077-0383
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15114230
dc.identifier.urihttps://openaccess.acibadem.edu.tr/handle/11443/11541
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001790535700001
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMDPI
dc.relation.hasversion10.3390/jcm15114230
dc.relation.ispartofJOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
dc.subjectartificial intelligence
dc.subjectbenchmarking
dc.subjectevidence synthesis
dc.subjectinformation extraction
dc.subjectlarge language models
dc.subjectneuroimaging
dc.subjectMedicine, General & Internal
dc.subjectGeneral & Internal Medicine
dc.titleEvaluating Large Language Models for Automated Evidence Synthesis in Neuroimaging AI: A Multi-Model Benchmark
dc.typeArticle
oaire.citation.editionScience Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)
oaire.citation.issue11
oaire.citation.volume15
person.identifier.orcid0009-0000-9668-7246
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-4839-3347
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5757-4502
person.identifier.ridAAA-4635-2020
person.identifier.ridGMW-6541-2022

Files

Collections