Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22515596›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2012

Studying the potential impact of automated document classification on scheduling a systematic review update.

Aaron M Cohen, Kyle Ambert, Marian McDonagh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. A question-answering framework for automated abstract screening using large language models.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Refining Boolean queries to identify relevant studies for systematic review updates.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Aaron M CohenDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. cohenaa@ohsu.edu
Kyle Ambert
Marian McDonagh

Funding

Text Mining Pipeline to Accelerate Systematic Reviews in Evidence-Based MedicineR01LM010817 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI COHEN, AARON M., SMALHEISER, NEIL R · 2010 to 2019
$4.5M
Assisting Systematic Review Preparation Using Automated Document ClassificationR01LM009501 · NLM · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI COHEN, AARON M. · 2007 to 2009
$898k
NLM NIH HHS 5R01LM009501NLM NIH HHS 5R01LM010817
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic Reviews (SRs) are an essential part of evidence-based medicine, providing support for clinical practice and policy on a wide range of medical topics. However, producing SRs is resource-intensive, and progress in the research they review leads to SRs becoming outdated, requiring updates. Although the question of how and when to update SRs has been studied, the best method for determining when to update is still unclear, necessitating further research.

methodsIn this work we study the potential impact of a machine learning-based automated system for providing alerts when new publications become available within an SR topic. Some of these new publications are especially important, as they report findings that are more likely to initiate a review update. To this end, we have designed a classification algorithm to identify articles that are likely to be included in an SR update, along with an annotation scheme designed to identify the most important publications in a topic area. Using an SR database containing over 70,000 articles, we annotated articles from 9 topics that had received an update during the study period. The algorithm was then evaluated in terms of the overall correct and incorrect alert rate for publications meeting the topic inclusion criteria, as well as in terms of its ability to identify important, update-motivating publications in a topic area.

resultsOur initial approach, based on our previous work in topic-specific SR publication classification, identifies over 70% of the most important new publications, while maintaining a low overall alert rate.

conclusionsWe performed an initial analysis of the opportunities and challenges in aiding the SR update planning process with an informatics-based machine learning approach. Alerts could be a useful tool in the planning, scheduling, and allocation of resources for SR updates, providing an improvement in timeliness and coverage for the large number of medical topics needing SRs. While the performance of this initial method is not perfect, it could be a useful supplement to current approaches to scheduling an SR update. Approaches specifically targeting the types of important publications identified by this work are likely to improve results.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceEvidence-Based MedicineDatabases, FactualHumansResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID22515596
PMCPMC3420236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.