> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.nested-knowledge.com/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.nested-knowledge.com/review-workflow/screening/adjudicate-records.md). # Adjudicate Records Learn how to adjudicate records. **Adjudicate Records** resolves disagreements in Dual Screening. An admin reviews the two independent decisions and records the final decision. One reviewer seat may be a human, **Robot Screener**, or **Smart Screener**. Records your reviewers agree on appear under **Agreements**. Resolve them one by one, or let **Auto Adjudicate** finalize them by rule so you can focus on disagreements. Independent decisions reduce anchoring between reviewers. Adjudication gives disagreements a considered, human tie-breaker. This preserves an auditable screening workflow for your PRISMA diagram or methods write-up. {% hint style="info" %} Only people with **Admin** privileges can adjudicate. Any user can screen. {% endhint %} ### Adjudicate A Record {% stepper %} {% step %} #### Choose Whether To Blind Reviewer Names Reviewer names are visible by default. To reduce bias, open **Nest Settings** and enable **Blind Adjudication**.

Nest Settings with the Blind Adjudication option — Enable Blind Adjudication in Nest Settings to hide reviewer names.

{% endstep %} {% step %} #### Open Adjudicate Screening Under the applicable screening stage, select **Adjudicate Screening**.

Screening navigation with Adjudicate Screening selected — Select Adjudicate Screening under the relevant screening stage.

{% endstep %} {% step %} #### Review Decisions Review both decisions and their rationale. Compare exclusion reasons, or criteria answers, in Abstract or Full Text Screening. {% endstep %} {% step %} #### Read The Record's Abstract Or Full Text Read the record's abstract or full text yourself. {% endstep %} {% step %} #### Record The Final Decision Select **Use** to apply an existing decision. Alternatively, select **Advance/Include** or another exclusion decision. The decision saves and opens the next record. {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} ### Auto-Adjudicate Agreements in Exclusion-Based Screening {% stepper %} {% step %} #### Open Auto-Adjudicate Under **Agreements**, select **Auto-Adjudicate n studies**.

Agreements section with Auto-Adjudicate n studies selected — Select Auto-Adjudicate n studies from Agreements.

{% endstep %} {% step %} #### Choose Adjudication Settings Choose which agreements to adjudicate automatically: * **Any:** The default. If both reviewers exclude a record, its final decision is excluded. * **Exact:** If both reviewers select the same exclusion reason, that reason becomes final. * **Shared:** If reviewers select different child reasons with the same parent, the parent reason becomes final. For example, **Randomized Controlled Trial** and **Case Study** can resolve to the parent reason **Study Type**. Learn more about hierarchical exclusion reasons. {% endstep %} {% step %} #### Auto-Adjudicate Studies Select **Auto-Adjudicate n studies**. This removes resolved records from the adjudication queue. Only unresolved disagreements remain. {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} ### Auto-Adjudicate Agreements in Criteria-Based Screening (CBS) Reviewing records your two reviewers already agree on is the most repetitive part of Dual Screening. **Auto Adjudicate** finalizes those agreements by rule, so your adjudicator's time goes to the records that need a judgment call. The more your reviewers agree, the more of the adjudication step it removes. Use it once your reviewers have screened a batch and you're satisfied their agreement is reliable. Choose the **Criteria** target if your protocol requires a human to make every final screening decision; choose **Criteria & Screening Decisions** to clear agreed records out of the queue entirely. {% hint style="info" %} Only a screening decision moves a record out of a Criteria-Based Screening queue. A record reaches the adjudication queue once it has two reviewer-level screening decisions, whether or not every criterion was answered. A record whose reviewers answered criteria but didn't record a decision stays in the reviewer queues. {% endhint %} {% stepper %} {% step %} #### Open Auto Adjudicate From **Adjudicate Screening**, under **Agreements**, select **Auto Adjudicate**.

Auto Adjudicate dialog in Adjudicate Screening — Open Auto Adjudicate from the Agreements section in Adjudicate Screening.

{% endstep %} {% step %} #### Choose an adjudication target * **Criteria:** Finalizes each criterion answer where both reviewers agree. Records stay in the adjudication queue with their agreed criteria filled in, so you can scan the rationale and record each final screening decision yourself. * **Criteria & Screening Decisions:** Also finalizes the screening decision wherever both reviewers recorded the same one. Those records leave the queue as advanced, included, or excluded. {% endstep %} {% step %} #### Set exclusion agreement **Exclusion Agreement** is available only when your target includes screening decisions. * **Any:** The default. If both reviewers excluded a record, it's excluded, whatever reason each gave. The first reviewer's exclusion reason is kept. * **Exact:** Both reviewers must have excluded the record for the same overall reason. {% endstep %} {% step %} #### Configure Not Reported (NR) handling (optional) Select **Advanced** to control how **Auto Adjudicate** resolves a criterion when one or both reviewers answered **NR (Not Reported)**. Agreements (**Yes**/**Yes**, **No**/**No**) always resolve automatically, and a **Yes**/**No** disagreement always requires manual adjudication. Combinations involving NR are configurable: | Reviewer 1 | Reviewer 2 | Default resolution | | ---------- | ---------- | ---------------------------- | | NR | NR | NR | | No | NR | Requires manual adjudication | | Yes | NR | Yes | By default, a **Yes**/**NR** combination resolves to **Yes**: **Auto Adjudicate** favors keeping a record in play when reviewers disagree only about whether something was reported. Each default is editable. {% endstep %} {% step %} #### Check the preview The record counts update as you change the target, **Exclusion Agreement**, and NR settings. Check them before you run, so you know how many records will be finalized and how many will be left for manual adjudication. {% endstep %} {% step %} #### Run Auto Adjudicate Select **Run Now**. Agreed records are finalized according to your settings. What's left in the queue are disagreements, with any agreed criteria already filled in. {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} #### How Auto Adjudicate decides **Auto Adjudicate** treats the screening decision and each criterion separately. It finalizes a screening decision based on the two reviewers' decisions alone, even if one or both reviewers left criteria unanswered, and it never derives a decision from how many criteria were met. A criterion is finalized only where both reviewers answered it in a way that agrees (or that your NR settings resolve). **Auto Adjudicate** works with any two reviewers, including one human and **Smart Screener**. If more than two reviewers screened a record (for example, because someone screened it from **Study Inspector**), **Auto Adjudicate** uses the first two human reviewers and ignores **Smart Screener**. Screen from the queues to keep each record to two reviewers. Where reviewers wrote rationale text for a criterion answer, **Auto Adjudicate** keeps one text. If two human reviewers wrote rationale, it keeps the first reviewer’s text. **Smart Screener**’s text is used only when no human wrote any. In the adjudication view, reviewers are listed by name (unless **Blind Adjudication** is on), and **Smart Screener** always appears last. ### Implications The adjudicator's decision is final. It doesn't average or split the original decisions. Adjudication requires the **Admin** role. You can change an adjudicated decision later in **Study Inspector**. Adjudication doesn't apply in Single Screening. One decision becomes final when recorded. **Robot Screener** and **Smart Screener** never adjudicate. A third, human adjudicator resolves every disagreement. ### FAQs

How do I undo or alter an adjudicated decision?

Use either approach: * In the adjudication queue, select **Back**. * In **Study Inspector**, filter for the record. Choose the correct screening mode, then select **Reset** . Record another decision if needed. To reset several records, use **Bulk Actions** in **Study Inspector**.

Does adjudication happen if the two decisions agree?

They reach the adjudication queue and appear under **Agreements**. Resolve them yourself, or run **Auto Adjudicate** to finalize them by rule and leave only disagreements in the queue.

Can more than one admin share adjudication duties on the same nest?

Yes. Once a record has been adjudicated once, it is removed from the queue.

What if I'm the admin and I also screened the record myself?

You can adjudicate the record yourself or assign another admin. Sharing and Access explains roles and permissions.

Does adjudication work differently under Exclusion Reasons versus Criteria-Based Screening?

The manual adjudication workflow is the same either way. Auto-adjudication is available for both, but with different settings: Exclusion-Based Screening offers Any, Exact, and Shared exclusion-reason matching, while Criteria-Based Screening lets you choose whether to auto-finalize just criteria or criteria and screening decisions together, with configurable handling of Not Reported (NR) answers.

Why are my records still in the queue after I ran Auto Adjudicate?

You likely chose the **Criteria** target. It finalizes agreed criterion answers but leaves every screening decision to you, so records stay in the queue until you record one. To move agreed records out automatically, run it again with **Criteria & Screening Decisions**.

Will Auto Adjudicate finalize a record if my reviewers didn't answer every criterion?

Yes, if your target includes screening decisions. The screening decision is adjudicated on the two reviewers' decisions alone. Unanswered criteria stay unanswered.

Can I make Auto Adjudicate include a record if, say, four of five criteria are met?

No. **Auto Adjudicate** doesn't count or combine criteria. It only checks whether the two reviewers' screening decisions agree. How criteria translate into a decision is up to each reviewer and your protocol.

What happens if more than two people screened the same record?

**Auto Adjudicate** uses the first two human reviewers and ignores **Smart Screener**. Extra reviews usually come from screening in **Study Inspector**; screen from the queues to avoid them.

Can I undo an auto-adjudicated decision?

Yes. Filter to the records in [**Study Inspector**](/review-workflow/study-inspector.md) to alter their final decision.

Can I auto-adjudicate when Smart Screener is one of my two reviewers?

Yes. **Auto Adjudicate** treats **Smart Screener** as a reviewer like any other when a record has two reviewers.

### Next Steps


Screening Agreement	Review agreement measures on the Activity page.	Activity
Tagging	Capture data from included records.	Tagging

--- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the following URL with the `ask` and `goal` query parameters: ``` GET https://docs.nested-knowledge.com/review-workflow/screening/adjudicate-records.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is what the user is ultimately trying to achieve, the reason they need the answer. Sharing it helps GitBook give you a better, more relevant answer. A goal is most helpful when it describes the outcome the user wants rather than restating the question. For example, with `ask=how do I create an API token`, a goal like `automate deployments from our CI pipeline` lets GitBook tailor the answer to that use case. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.