---
title: Screen papers for a review
description: Ask each inclusion criterion of a literature review as a yes-or-no question about every abstract, then include, exclude or send each paper to a person.
goal: A researcher leaves with every abstract marked include, exclude or person, from one question per criterion and a routing rule they wrote.
reader: A researcher or analyst screening paper abstracts against fixed criteria
kind: how-to
verified: 2026-11-03
---

# Screen papers for a review

At the end, every abstract is marked include, exclude or person, and the papers ThinkThen is not sure about wait for a person to read.

## 1. Put the abstracts in a file

Write one paper per line as JSON, each with an `id` and the abstract in `text`:

```json title="papers.jsonl"
{"id":"p1","text":"A randomized controlled trial of chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy in 412 adults with advanced lung cancer."}
{"id":"p2","text":"We reviewed the charts of 90 patients treated for colon cancer at one center from 2015 to 2020."}
{"id":"p3","text":"Patients with lung cancer were assigned to a new follow-up schedule or usual care. We report results for the first 60."}
```

## 2. Write each criterion as a question

Each criterion of the review becomes one yes-or-no question in a [toolbox](/command-line/toolboxes/). Each has a low and a high bar, so an abstract that doesn't settle the question comes back not sure.

```json title="screen.json"
{
  "field": "/text",
  "questions": {
    "trial": {
      "function": "decide",
      "question": "Is this a randomized controlled trial?",
      "threshold": {"low": 0.3, "high": 0.7}
    },
    "lung": {
      "function": "decide",
      "question": "Does the study enroll lung cancer patients?",
      "threshold": {"low": 0.3, "high": 0.7}
    }
  }
}
```

## 3. Ask every criterion about every paper

[annotate](/functions/annotate/) asks both questions about each abstract. `--into screen` adds the answers to each line:

```sh
thinkthen annotate --into screen \
  screen.json papers.jsonl > screened.jsonl
jq -c '{id, screen}' screened.jsonl
```

Output

```text
{"id":"p1","screen":{"lung":true,"trial":true}}
{"id":"p2","screen":{"lung":false,"trial":false}}
{"id":"p3","screen":{"lung":true,"trial":"unsure"}}
```


The first paper is a randomized trial in lung cancer. The second is neither. The third says patients were assigned to a schedule but not how, so the model is not sure it is randomized.

## 4. Include, exclude or send to a person

Your code decides the route, in `screen.jq`. A paper that fails any criterion is excluded. A paper that meets every criterion is included. Anything else, a not-sure answer or a failed one, goes to a person.

```text title="screen.jq"
[.screen.trial, .screen.lung] as $a
| if any($a[]; . == false) then "\(.id) exclude"
  elif all($a[]; . == true) then "\(.id) include"
  else "\(.id) person"
  end
```

```sh
jq -r -f screen.jq screened.jsonl
```

Output

```text
p1 include
p2 exclude
p3 person
```


The first paper is included, the second is excluded, and the third goes to a person.

## Check the result

- Screen a sample by hand, excluded papers included, and count where you and the model disagree on each criterion. A criterion with many disagreements needs a clearer question. [Measure answers against your own labels](/how-tos/measure-answers-against-your-own-labels/) shows the counts.
- Every paper sent to a person needs a person's decision before the review uses it.

## Next

[Find the same company in two lists](/how-tos/find-the-same-company-in-two-lists/) asks a question about pairs of lines.