SynthesisAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2010
A Prospective Evaluation of an Automated Classification System to Support Evidence-based Medicine and Systematic Review.
Synthesis in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches.Systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Automation of systematic reviews of biomedical literature: a scoping review of studies indexed in PubMed.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Predicting postoperative surgical site infection with administrative data: a random forests algorithm.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Refining Boolean queries to identify relevant studies for systematic review updates.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
- SWIFT-Active Screener: Accelerated document screening through active learning and integrated recall estimation.Environment international · 2020Article
- Improving reference prioritisation with PICO recognition.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Prioritising references for systematic reviews with RobotAnalyst: A user study.Research synthesis methods · 2018Article
- Article
- Automatically finding relevant citations for clinical guideline development.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2015Article
- Automated confidence ranked classification of randomized controlled trial articles: an aid to evidence-based medicine.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2015Article
- Virk: an active learning-based system for bootstrapping knowledge base development in the neurosciences.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2013Article
- Studying the potential impact of automated document classification on scheduling a systematic review update.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Systematic reviews (SR) are an important and labor-intensive part of the Evidence-based Medicine process that could benefit from automated literature classification tools. We conducted a prospective study of a support vector machine-based classifier for supporting the SR literature triage process. Over 50,000 training data samples were collected for 18 topics prior to March 2008, and used to make predictions on 11,000 test data samples collected during the subsequent two years. Test performance (AUC) was comparable to that estimated by cross-validation on the training set, and ranging from 0.75 - 0.99. Mean AUC macro-averaged across all topics was 0.89, demonstrating that these methods can achieve accurate results in near-real world conditions and are promising tools for deployment to groups conducting SRs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21346953PMC3041348What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.