ArticleSystematic reviews2015
Supporting systematic reviews using LDA-based document representations.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mapping the landscape of women entrepreneurs in micro and small enterprises: Trends, themes, and insights through systematic review and text mining.F1000Research · 2025Pooled it
- Current trends in cancer immunotherapy: a literature-mining analysis.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2020Pooled it
- A methodological framework for conducting diagnostic meta-analyses using large literature corpora.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- The landscape of artificial intelligence tools and platforms for evidence synthesis: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Topic selection for text classification using ensemble topic modeling with grouping, scoring, and modeling approach.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Isopropanol sensor based on sprayed InRSC advances · 2024Article
- Automation of systematic reviews of biomedical literature: a scoping review of studies indexed in PubMed.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Insights into the nutritional prevention of macular degeneration based on a comparative topic modeling approach.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
- Article
- Unsupervised title and abstract screening for systematic review: a retrospective case-study using topic modelling methodology.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- TextNetTopics: Text Classification Based Word Grouping as Topics and Topics' Scoring.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- What are the main patient safety concerns of healthcare stakeholders: a mixed-method study of Web-based text.International journal of medical informatics · 2020Observational
- SWIFT-Active Screener: Accelerated document screening through active learning and integrated recall estimation.Environment international · 2020Article
- Modeling Research Topics for Artificial Intelligence Applications in Medicine: Latent Dirichlet Allocation Application Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Patient healthcare trajectory. An essential monitoring tool: a systematic review.Health information science and systems · 2017Review
- Clinical Research Informatics: Supporting the Research Study Lifecycle.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2017Review
- Article
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
backgroundIdentifying relevant studies for inclusion in a systematic review (i.e. screening) is a complex, laborious and expensive task. Recently, a number of studies has shown that the use of machine learning and text mining methods to automatically identify relevant studies has the potential to drastically decrease the workload involved in the screening phase. The vast majority of these machine learning methods exploit the same underlying principle, i.e. a study is modelled as a bag-of-words (BOW).
methodsWe explore the use of topic modelling methods to derive a more informative representation of studies. We apply Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA), an unsupervised topic modelling approach, to automatically identify topics in a collection of studies. We then represent each study as a distribution of LDA topics. Additionally, we enrich topics derived using LDA with multi-word terms identified by using an automatic term recognition (ATR) tool. For evaluation purposes, we carry out automatic identification of relevant studies using support vector machine (SVM)-based classifiers that employ both our novel topic-based representation and the BOW representation.
resultsOur results show that the SVM classifier is able to identify a greater number of relevant studies when using the LDA representation than the BOW representation. These observations hold for two systematic reviews of the clinical domain and three reviews of the social science domain.
conclusionsA topic-based feature representation of documents outperforms the BOW representation when applied to the task of automatic citation screening. The proposed term-enriched topics are more informative and less ambiguous to systematic reviewers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.