Skip to main content

This is a preprint.

It has not yet been peer reviewed by a journal.

The National Library of Medicine is running a pilot to include preprints that result from research funded by NIH in PMC and PubMed.

medRxiv logoLink to medRxiv
[Preprint]. 2026 Jun 26:2026.06.16.26355773. [Version 1] doi: 10.64898/2026.06.16.26355773

Performance of Google NotebookLM for AI-assisted data extraction and consensus statement generation in a heterogenous systematic review on inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, and cardiometabolic comorbidities: A Methodological Report

Sami Samaan, Jalpa Devi, Matthew Vincent, Shannon Coombs, Priya Sehgal, Mouhand Mouhamed, Victoria Rai, Amanda M Johnson, Andres J Yarur, Edward L Barnes, Parakkal Deepak
PMCID: PMC13320940  PMID: 42396330

Abstract

Background

Large language models (LLMs) offer promise for systematic review data extraction, but performance in complex multidisciplinary domains and utility for clinical statement generation remain insufficiently described.

Objectives

To evaluate Google NotebookLM for AI-assisted data extraction and RAND/UCLA consensus statement generation in a systematic review of IBD, obesity, and cardiometabolic comorbidities.

Methods

Studies were organized into domain-specific notebooks; structured prompts generated standardized evidence tables. Two independent reviewers validated outputs against full-text articles using a four-category error classification. Cell-level accuracy and critical accuracy (cells free of major factual errors) were the primary metrics; workflow time was compared against a published conventional extraction benchmark. Concordance between AI-generated and expert-finalized statements was assessed.

Results

Across 57 articles, 1,710 data cells were extracted; 151 (8.83%) were flagged, yielding 91.17% cell-level accuracy. Major factual errors occurred in only 4 cells (0.23%), for a critical accuracy of 99.77%. Most errors were minor omissions (59.6%) or incomplete extractions (30.5%); domain error rates ranged from 7.08% to 11.33%. The pipeline required 17.7 versus a projected 165.1 person-hours (89.3% reduction). PICO-structured prompting generated 70 candidate statements; 58 of 112 finalized panel statements (51.8%) were AI-derived, and 85.7% were retained in the finalized set.

Conclusion

Google NotebookLM demonstrates feasibility as a primary extraction and synthesis tool in a multidisciplinary systematic review, with extractive incompleteness as the principal limitation and substantial time savings over conventional approaches. Its novel application to RAND/UCLA consensus statement generation extends AI-assisted evidence synthesis to clinical consensus generation workflow.

Full Text Availability

The license terms selected by the author(s) for this preprint version do not permit archiving in PMC. The full text is available from the preprint server.


Articles from medRxiv are provided here courtesy of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Preprints

RESOURCES