Literature DB >> 20841667

Towards automating the initial screening phase of a systematic review.

Tanja Bekhuis1, Dina Demner-Fushman.   

Abstract

Systematic review authors synthesize research to guide clinicians in their practice of evidence-based medicine. Teammates independently identify provisionally eligible studies by reading the same set of hundreds and sometimes thousands of citations during an initial screening phase. We investigated whether supervised machine learning methods can potentially reduce their workload. We also extended earlier research by including observational studies of a rare condition. To build training and test sets, we used annotated citations from a search conducted for an in-progress Cochrane systematic review. We extracted features from titles, abstracts, and metadata, then trained, optimized, and tested several classifiers with respect to mean performance based on 10-fold cross-validations. In the training condition, the evolutionary support vector machine (EvoSVM) with an Epanechnikov or radial kernel is the best classifier: mean recall=100%; mean precision=48% and 41%, respectively. In the test condition, EvoSVM performance degrades: mean recall=77%, mean precision ranges from 26% to 37%. Because near-perfect recall is essential in this context, we conclude that supervised machine learning methods may be useful for reducing workload under certain conditions.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20841667

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform        ISSN: 0926-9630


  14 in total

1.  A new iterative method to reduce workload in systematic review process.

Authors:  Siddhartha Jonnalagadda; Diana Petitti
Journal:  Int J Comput Biol Drug Des       Date:  2013-02-21

2.  MMiDaS-AE: Multi-modal Missing Data aware Stacked Autoencoder for Biomedical Abstract Screening.

Authors:  Eric W Lee; Byron C Wallace; Karla I Galaviz; Joyce C Ho
Journal:  Proc ACM Conf Health Inference Learn (2020)       Date:  2020-04-02

3.  A Prototype for a Hybrid System to Support Systematic Review Teams: A Case Study of Organ Transplantation.

Authors:  Tanja Bekhuis; Eugene Tseytlin; Kevin J Mitchell
Journal:  Proceedings (IEEE Int Conf Bioinformatics Biomed)       Date:  2015-11

4.  Screening nonrandomized studies for medical systematic reviews: a comparative study of classifiers.

Authors:  Tanja Bekhuis; Dina Demner-Fushman
Journal:  Artif Intell Med       Date:  2012-06-05       Impact factor: 5.326

5.  A Text-Mining Framework for Supporting Systematic Reviews.

Authors:  Dingcheng Li; Zhen Wang; Liwei Wang; Sunghwan Sohn; Feichen Shen; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Hongfang Liu
Journal:  Am J Inf Manag       Date:  2016-08-31

6.  Dynamic summarization of bibliographic-based data.

Authors:  T Elizabeth Workman; John F Hurdle
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 7.  Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches.

Authors:  Alison O'Mara-Eves; James Thomas; John McNaught; Makoto Miwa; Sophia Ananiadou
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2015-01-14

8.  Reducing systematic review workload through certainty-based screening.

Authors:  Makoto Miwa; James Thomas; Alison O'Mara-Eves; Sophia Ananiadou
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 6.317

9.  Supporting systematic reviews using LDA-based document representations.

Authors:  Yuanhan Mo; Georgios Kontonatsios; Sophia Ananiadou
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2015-11-26

10.  Feature engineering and a proposed decision-support system for systematic reviewers of medical evidence.

Authors:  Tanja Bekhuis; Eugene Tseytlin; Kevin J Mitchell; Dina Demner-Fushman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.