Systematic reviews, scoping reviews, mapping studies, and related evidence syntheses are increasingly difficult to conduct with fully manual workflows as search volumes, update cycles, and synthesis requirements continue to expand. At the same time, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and large language models are rapidly entering review practice across query formulation, screening, extraction, categorization, appraisal support, and reporting. Yet the empirical evidence remains uneven, task-dependent, and insufficient to justify unconstrained automation. Existing standards such as PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-S, PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA-P, PRESS, and SWiM remain essential, but none provides an end-to-end operational standard for when AI use is methodologically appropriate, how it should be validated, which review decisions must remain human-led, and how AI involvement should be reported so that readers can audit it. This paper proposes ARISMA, an AI Reporting and Integration standard for Systematic Methods and Analysis. ARISMA treats AI as an inspected, benchmarked, logged, and reversible assistant rather than an autonomous reviewer. It is built around one governing principle: every consequential scientific decision must remain human-interpretable, human-auditable, and human-accountable. The paper contributes a lifecycle taxonomy, process guidance, stepwise recommendations across the review pipeline, a governance and provenance model, a tool-support framework, an AI-integrated reporting checklist, and a validation matrix. It also addresses legal, privacy, infrastructure, and sustainability considerations. The framework was iteratively refined through structured expert consultation. The result is a practical and auditable guideline for responsible AI-assisted evidence synthesis.
Assistive agents that adapt web pages on the user's side, at the moment of browsing, could reach the accessibility failures that site authors leave unfixed, and large language models make such agents newly plausible. We contribute three building blocks toward that goal. The first is a complete, privacy-preserving browser agent: a Chrome extension that extracts a page's style sheets, condenses them to fit a local model's context window, asks the model for additive CSS addressing 18 metrics from WCAG and the W3C cognitive accessibility guidance, and injects the result reversibly into the live page. The second is a dual-condition protocol that measures harm as carefully as benefit, applied to six small open-weight models (7B to 14B) on ten violation-rich and ten highly accessible live sites. The diagnosis is sobering but precise: unverified generation improved and regressed pages at similar rates (24 improvements against 20 regressions across the 100 trials of the five models that produced injectable CSS), fixing typography while breaking perception-dependent properties. The third answers the diagnosis: a verified repair instrument pairing a trilingual seeded-violation benchmark with an audit-inject-verify loop that accepts a change only if violations strictly decrease, so regression on the automated checks is impossible by construction. In a real browser the instrument detects 57 of 57 seeded violations with no false positives and rejects 126 of 126 adversarially harmful candidates. All code, prompts, benchmark materials, aggregate data, and validation logs are released.
Lily Bundgaard Wanscher, Markus Heidemann Lorensen, Mohammed Ammad Shafiq et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.