Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26612232›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2015

Supporting systematic reviews using LDA-based document representations.

Yuanhan Mo, Georgios Kontonatsios, Sophia Ananiadou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Current trends in cancer immunotherapy: a literature-mining analysis.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. 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.

Yuanhan MoSchool of Computer Science, National Centre for Text Mining, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. maxmo2009@gmail.com.
Georgios KontonatsiosSchool of Computer Science, National Centre for Text Mining, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. georgios.kontonatsios@manchester.ac.uk.
Sophia AnaniadouSchool of Computer Science, National Centre for Text Mining, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Sophia.Ananiadou@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L01078X/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Models, StatisticalReview Literature as TopicSupport Vector MachineBiomedical ResearchData MiningDecision Making, Computer-AssistedHumans

Identifiers

PMID26612232
PMCPMC4662004

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.