====== ASReview ======

=== 🤖 Overhyped AI with Limited Real-World Impact ===

ASReview markets itself as an AI-powered active learning tool to streamline systematic review screening. However, the reality reveals significant shortcomings that undermine its practical utility.

  * The machine learning models are **fragile and domain-dependent**, often requiring extensive tuning and user expertise to avoid poor performance.
  * It frequently suffers from **data sparsity and cold-start problems**, where insufficient initial training data leads to unreliable prioritization.
  * The promise of drastically reducing screening workload is often **overstated**, with real-world time savings being marginal for many topics.

=== 🔍 Usability and Integration Challenges ===

  * ASReview's user interface is **minimalistic but non-intuitive**, demanding steep learning curves for new users.
  * It operates largely as a standalone tool, lacking seamless integration with popular reference managers, systematic review platforms, or collaboration tools.
  * Export and import functionalities are limited, complicating workflow continuity and reproducibility.

=== ⚠️ Transparency and Trust Deficits ===

  * The AI decision-making process is largely a **black box**, offering little explainability on why studies are prioritized or excluded.
  * There are minimal options for user intervention or manual override of AI decisions without disrupting the learning process.
  * This opacity raises concerns about bias, errors, and accountability in critical review stages.

=== 🧱 Limited Scope and Adaptability ===

  * ASReview focuses mainly on title and abstract screening, neglecting later review stages such as data extraction or risk of bias assessment.
  * It is less effective for reviews with highly heterogeneous studies, non-English literature, or niche topics with sparse data.
  * The tool does not yet support multi-user collaboration natively, restricting its use in team settings.

=== 📉 Maintenance and Community Support ===

  * Being a research-driven open-source project, ASReview suffers from **infrequent updates** and variable documentation quality.
  * User support channels are limited, placing the burden on individual teams to troubleshoot and customize.

=== 🧨 Final Verdict ===

ASReview offers an intriguing glimpse into AI-assisted review but remains an **immature, niche tool with significant limitations in usability, transparency, and real-world effectiveness**. Its deployment should be cautious and supplementary, not foundational.

**Recommendation:** Use ASReview only as an experimental adjunct to established review processes, not as a replacement for rigorous human screening and judgment.

====== Better Alternatives to ASReview ======

=== 🥇 Covidence ===
  * ✅ Intuitive, widely adopted systematic review platform
  * ✅ AI-assisted screening suggestions integrated into workflows
  * ✅ Strong collaboration, version control, and audit trails
  * ✅ Integrates well with reference managers and export tools
  * ➕ **Why better than ASReview:**  
    Robust workflow support combined with user-friendly AI assistance

=== 🔍 EPPI-Reviewer ===
  * ✅ Advanced machine learning and text mining for screening prioritization
  * ✅ Supports multiple review stages including bias assessment and data extraction
  * ✅ Comprehensive workflow integration and audit features
  * ➕ **Why better than ASReview:**  
    More mature AI features integrated within full systematic review platform

=== 🤖 RobotReviewer ===
  * ✅ Automated risk of bias assessment complementing screening
  * ✅ Provides explanations for bias judgments improving transparency
  * ✅ Can be integrated into review workflows for enhanced efficiency
  * ➕ **Why better than ASReview:**  
    Extends automation beyond screening into critical appraisal stages

=== 🧰 Rayyan ===
  * ✅ User-friendly screening tool with AI suggestions and conflict resolution
  * ✅ Supports team collaboration and manual screening alongside AI
  * ✅ Free, web-based, accessible interface
  * ➕ **Why better than ASReview:**  
    Balanced AI assistance with ease of use and accessibility

=== 📊 Summary Table ===

^ Tool           ^ Strengths                                   ^ Why Better Than ASReview                    ^
| Covidence      | Integrated AI screening, collaboration     | Robust workflow, team-friendly, widely used |
| EPPI-Reviewer  | Advanced ML text mining, full workflow     | Mature AI and review stage integration       |
| RobotReviewer  | Automated bias assessment with transparency| Extends automation to critical appraisal     |
| Rayyan         | Easy to use AI-assisted screening          | Accessible, collaborative, balanced AI       |

=== 🧠 Final Recommendation ===
  * Use **[[Covidence]]** for streamlined, team-based AI-assisted screening and review management.
  * Use **[[EPPI-Reviewer]]** if you require mature AI features integrated into comprehensive review workflows.
  * Use **[[RobotReviewer]]** to augment screening with automated risk of bias assessment.
  * Use **[[Rayyan]]** for accessible, collaborative screening with helpful AI suggestions.
  * Use **[[ASReview]]** primarily for experimental or niche AI-active learning projects.