Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28648605›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2017

A semi-supervised approach using label propagation to support citation screening.

Georgios Kontonatsios, Austin J Brockmeier, Piotr Przybyła, John McNaught, Tingting Mu, John Y Goulermas, Sophia Ananiadou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. MMiDaS-AE: Multi-modal Missing Data aware Stacked Autoencoder for Biomedical Abstract Screening.Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning · 2020
    Article
  8. Improving reference prioritisation with PICO recognition.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Georgios KontonatsiosNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Austin J BrockmeierSchool of Electrical Engineering, Electronics and Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Piotr PrzybyłaNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
John McNaughtNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Tingting MuNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
John Y GoulermasSchool of Electrical Engineering, Electronics and Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Sophia AnaniadouNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. Electronic address: sophia.ananiadou@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L01078X/1Medical Research Council MR/N015665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Citation screening, an integral process within systematic reviews that identifies citations relevant to the underlying research question, is a time-consuming and resource-intensive task. During the screening task, analysts manually assign a label to each citation, to designate whether a citation is eligible for inclusion in the review. Recently, several studies have explored the use of active learning in text classification to reduce the human workload involved in the screening task. However, existing approaches require a significant amount of manually labelled citations for the text classification to achieve a robust performance. In this paper, we propose a semi-supervised method that identifies relevant citations as early as possible in the screening process by exploiting the pairwise similarities between labelled and unlabelled citations to improve the classification performance without additional manual labelling effort. Our approach is based on the hypothesis that similar citations share the same label (e.g., if one citation should be included, then other similar citations should be included also). To calculate the similarity between labelled and unlabelled citations we investigate two different feature spaces, namely a bag-of-words and a spectral embedding based on the bag-of-words. The semi-supervised method propagates the classification codes of manually labelled citations to neighbouring unlabelled citations in the feature space. The automatically labelled citations are combined with the manually labelled citations to form an augmented training set. For evaluation purposes, we apply our method to reviews from clinical and public health. The results show that our semi-supervised method with label propagation achieves statistically significant improvements over two state-of-the-art active learning approaches across both clinical and public health reviews.

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicAutomationData CurationHumansNatural Language ProcessingActive learningCitation screeningLabel propagationSemi-supervised learningText classification

Identifiers

PMID28648605
PMCPMC5726085

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.