Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27216467›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2016

SWIFT-Review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review.

Brian E Howard, Jason Phillips, Kyle Miller, Arpit Tandon, Deepak Mav, Mihir R Shah, Stephanie Holmgren, Katherine E Pelch, Vickie Walker, Andrew A Rooney and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

13 authors.

Brian E HowardSciOme LLC, Research Triangle Park, 2 Davis Drive, 27709, NC, USA. brian.howard@sciome.com.
Jason PhillipsSciOme LLC, Research Triangle Park, 2 Davis Drive, 27709, NC, USA.
Kyle MillerSciOme LLC, Research Triangle Park, 2 Davis Drive, 27709, NC, USA.
Arpit TandonSciOme LLC, Research Triangle Park, 2 Davis Drive, 27709, NC, USA.
Deepak MavSciOme LLC, Research Triangle Park, 2 Davis Drive, 27709, NC, USA.
Mihir R ShahSciOme LLC, Research Triangle Park, 2 Davis Drive, 27709, NC, USA.
Stephanie HolmgrenOffice of Scientific Information Management, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Katherine E PelchDivision of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Vickie WalkerDivision of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Andrew A RooneyDivision of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Malcolm MacleodCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Ruchir R ShahSciOme LLC, Research Triangle Park, 2 Davis Drive, 27709, NC, USA.
Kristina ThayerDivision of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.

Funding

Integrated Health Assessments for the National Toxicology ProgramZIAES103317 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ROONEY, ANDREW · 2016 to 2019
$24.4M
Medical Research Council MR/N015665/1National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/L000970/1
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsData MiningMachine LearningSoftwareSystematic Reviews as TopicDatabases, FactualInformation Storage and RetrievalLinear ModelsLiterature prioritizationScoping reportsSoftwareSWIFT-ReviewSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27216467
PMCPMC4877757

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.