ArticleSystematic reviews2016
SWIFT-Review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 12 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
82 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Structural gaps in referral and treatment pathways for gambling-related harm: a systematic review of health system responses using the antecedents-decision-outcomes framework.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Relationship of prenatal methylmercury exposure and language/verbal function: a meta-analysis.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025Pooled it
- Application of systematic evidence mapping to identify available data on the potential human health hazards of selected market-relevant azo dyes.Environment international · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic evidence map for the evaluation of noncancer health effects and exposures to polychlorinated biphenyl mixtures.Environmental research · 2023Pooled it
- Galectin-3 is Associated with Heart Failure Incidence: A Meta-Analysis.Current cardiology reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic Evidence Map for Over One Hundred and Fifty Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).Environmental health perspectives · 2022Pooled it
- Human exposure pathways to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from indoor media: A systematic review.Environment international · 2022Pooled it
- Toxic effects of nanomaterials for health applications: How automation can support a systematic review of the literature?Journal of applied toxicology : JAT · 2022Pooled it
- Application of systematic evidence mapping to assess the impact of new research when updating health reference values: A case example using acrolein.Environment international · 2020Pooled it
- A systematic review of cardiovascular responses associated with ambient black carbon and fine particulate matter.Environment international · 2019Pooled it
- Human Ischaemic Cascade Studies Using SH-SY5Y Cells: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Translational stroke research · 2018Pooled it
- Exploring the endocrine activity of air pollutants associated with unconventional oil and gas extraction.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2018Pooled it
- Unlocking the Hidden Value of Evaluation Reports: A Semi-Automated Workflow to Inform Strategic Planning and Monitoring of SDG Progress Within UNICEF.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Systematic Evidence Map for the Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Universe.Environmental health perspectives · 2026Review
- AI-Assisted Systematic Literature Review of the Economic Burden of Pneumococcal Disease: Development and Validation Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Unequal harvests: AI-assisted evidence map of trends and gaps in global farmer health research along SDG 3 priorities.BMJ open · 2026Review
- Comparing the performance of narrow vs. broad search strategies when using machine learning-based software for title/abstract screening.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- The landscape of artificial intelligence tools and platforms for evidence synthesis: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Consensus findings of an International Workshops on Genotoxicity Testing workshop on using transcriptomic biomarkers to predict genotoxicity.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025Review
- Blood Flow Restriction Training Prior to and After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Scoping Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Review
22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is growing interest in using machine learning approaches to priority rank studies and reduce human burden in screening literature when conducting systematic reviews. In addition, identifying addressable questions during the problem formulation phase of systematic review can be challenging, especially for topics having a large literature base. Here, we assess the performance of the SWIFT-Review priority ranking algorithm for identifying studies relevant to a given research question. We also explore the use of SWIFT-Review during problem formulation to identify, categorize, and visualize research areas that are data rich/data poor within a large literature corpus.
methodsTwenty case studies, including 15 public data sets, representing a range of complexity and size, were used to assess the priority ranking performance of SWIFT-Review. For each study, seed sets of manually annotated included and excluded titles and abstracts were used for machine training. The remaining references were then ranked for relevance using an algorithm that considers term frequency and latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) topic modeling. This ranking was evaluated with respect to (1) the number of studies screened in order to identify 95 % of known relevant studies and (2) the "Work Saved over Sampling" (WSS) performance metric. To assess SWIFT-Review for use in problem formulation, PubMed literature search results for 171 chemicals implicated as EDCs were uploaded into SWIFT-Review (264,588 studies) and categorized based on evidence stream and health outcome. Patterns of search results were surveyed and visualized using a variety of interactive graphics.
resultsCompared with the reported performance of other tools using the same datasets, the SWIFT-Review ranking procedure obtained the highest scores on 11 out of 15 of the public datasets. Overall, these results suggest that using machine learning to triage documents for screening has the potential to save, on average, more than 50 % of the screening effort ordinarily required when using un-ordered document lists. In addition, the tagging and annotation capabilities of SWIFT-Review can be useful during the activities of scoping and problem formulation.
conclusionsText-mining and machine learning software such as SWIFT-Review can be valuable tools to reduce the human screening burden and assist in problem formulation.
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.