ArticleProceedings. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine2015
A Prototype for a Hybrid System to Support Systematic Review Teams: A Case Study of Organ Transplantation.
Article in Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
We describe a prototype for a hybrid system designed to reduce the number of citations needed to re-screen (NNRS) by systematic reviewers, where citations include titles, abstracts, and metadata. The system obviates the need for screening the entire set of citations a second time, which is typically done to control human error. The reference set is based on a complex review about organ transplantation (N=10,796 citations). Data were split into 50% training and test sets, randomly stratified for percentage eligible citations. The system consists of a rule-based module and a machine-learning (ML) module. The former substantially reduces the number of negative citations passed to the ML module and improves imbalance. Relative to the baseline, the system reduces classification error (5.6% vs 2.9%) thereby reducing NNRS by 47.3% (300 vs 158). We discuss the implications of de-emphasizing sensitivity (recall) in favor of specificity and negative predictive value to reduce screening burden.
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.