Evaluating Large Language Models for Automated Evidence Synthesis in Neuroimaging AI: A Multi-Model Benchmark
| dc.contributor.author | Sulaimanov, Umid | |
| dc.contributor.author | Sanlier, Nafiye | |
| dc.contributor.author | Moniri, Ariorad | |
| dc.contributor.author | Demir, Behman | |
| dc.contributor.author | Serikkanov, Yerkebulan | |
| dc.contributor.author | Bayramoglu, Ahmed Rasim | |
| dc.contributor.author | Al-Jebur, Maryam Sabah | |
| dc.contributor.author | Sanlier, Melih Yucel | |
| dc.contributor.author | Erginoglu, Ugur | |
| dc.contributor.author | Otles, Erkin | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ammanuel, Simon Gashaw | |
| dc.contributor.author | Keles, Abdullah | |
| dc.contributor.author | Erginoglu, Ufuk | |
| dc.contributor.author | Baskaya, Mustafa Kemal | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-11-05T11:08:29Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2026 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: 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.issue | 11 | |
| dc.description.pages | 4230 | |
| dc.description.volume | 15 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.3390/jcm15114230 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2077-0383 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15114230 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://openaccess.acibadem.edu.tr/handle/11443/11541 | |
| dc.identifier.wos | WOS:001790535700001 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | MDPI | |
| dc.relation.hasversion | 10.3390/jcm15114230 | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE | |
| dc.subject | artificial intelligence | |
| dc.subject | benchmarking | |
| dc.subject | evidence synthesis | |
| dc.subject | information extraction | |
| dc.subject | large language models | |
| dc.subject | neuroimaging | |
| dc.subject | Medicine, General & Internal | |
| dc.subject | General & Internal Medicine | |
| dc.title | Evaluating Large Language Models for Automated Evidence Synthesis in Neuroimaging AI: A Multi-Model Benchmark | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| oaire.citation.edition | Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) | |
| oaire.citation.issue | 11 | |
| oaire.citation.volume | 15 | |
| person.identifier.orcid | 0009-0000-9668-7246 | |
| person.identifier.orcid | 0000-0002-4839-3347 | |
| person.identifier.orcid | 0000-0002-5757-4502 | |
| person.identifier.rid | AAA-4635-2020 | |
| person.identifier.rid | GMW-6541-2022 |
