Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29071308›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of information management2016

A Text-Mining Framework for Supporting Systematic Reviews.

Dingcheng Li, Zhen Wang, Liwei Wang, Sunghwan Sohn, Feichen Shen, Mohammad Hassan Murad, Hongfang Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of information management, 2016. 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. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Semi-automated Tools for Systematic Searches.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    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.

Dingcheng LiDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Zhen WangDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Liwei WangDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Sunghwan SohnDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Feichen ShenDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Mohammad Hassan MuradRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Centre for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Hongfang LiuDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.

Funding

Semi-structured Information Retrieval in Clinical Text for Cohort IdentificationR01LM011934 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI HERSH, WILLIAM R, LIU, HONGFANG · 2014 to 2025
$5.1M
Methods for generalized ontology terms enrichment analysisR01LM011369 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SHAH, NIGAM H · 2013 to 2020
$5.0M
Natural language processing for clinical and translational researchR01GM102282 · NIGMS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI LIU, HONGFANG, PAKHOMOV, SERGUEI VS · 2013 to 2016
$2.5M
Patient Medical History Representation, Extraction, and Inference from EHR DataR01LM011829 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI TAO, CUI · 2014 to 2018
$1.7M
Construction of Relation Detection Framework Empowered by Topic ModelingK99LM012021 · NLM · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI LI, DING CHENG · 2015 to 2015
$94k
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM102282NLM NIH HHS K99 LM012021NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011369NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011829NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011934
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SRs) involve the identification, appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies for focused questions in a structured reproducible manner. High-quality SRs follow strict procedures and require significant resources and time. We investigated advanced text-mining approaches to reduce the burden associated with abstract screening in SRs and provide high-level information summary. A text-mining SR supporting framework consisting of three self-defined semantics-based ranking metrics was proposed, including keyword relevance, indexed-term relevance and topic relevance. Keyword relevance is based on the user-defined keyword list used in the search strategy. Indexed-term relevance is derived from indexed vocabulary developed by domain experts used for indexing journal articles and books. Topic relevance is defined as the semantic similarity among retrieved abstracts in terms of topics generated by latent Dirichlet allocation, a Bayesian-based model for discovering topics. We tested the proposed framework using three published SRs addressing a variety of topics (Mass Media Interventions, Rectal Cancer and Influenza Vaccine). The results showed that when 91.8%, 85.7%, and 49.3% of the abstract screening labor was saved, the recalls were as high as 100% for the three cases; respectively. Relevant studies identified manually showed strong topic similarity through topic analysis, which supported the inclusion of topic analysis as relevance metric. It was demonstrated that advanced text mining approaches can significantly reduce the abstract screening labor of SRs and provide an informative summary of relevant studies.

Indexed as

Data MiningIndexed-Term RelevanceKeyword RelevanceSystematic ReviewText MiningTopic ModelingTopic Relevance

Identifiers

PMID29071308
PMCPMC5653323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.