Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33810798›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2021

Iterative guided machine learning-assisted systematic literature reviews: a diabetes case study.

John Zimmerman, Robin E Soler, James Lavinder, Sarah Murphy, Charisma Atkins, LaShonda Hulbert, Richard Lusk, Boon Peng Ng

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

John ZimmermanDeloitte Consulting, LLP, 191 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA. Jzimmerman@deloitte.com.
Robin E SolerCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Diabetes Translation, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, USA.
James LavinderDeloitte Consulting, LLP, 191 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA.
Sarah MurphyDeloitte Consulting, LLP, 191 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA.
Charisma AtkinsCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Diabetes Translation, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, USA.
LaShonda HulbertCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Diabetes Translation, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Richard LuskDeloitte Consulting, LLP, 191 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA.
Boon Peng NgCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Diabetes Translation, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Deloitte (United States) · USNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USUniversity of Central Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic Reviews (SR), studies of studies, use a formal process to evaluate the quality of scientific literature and determine ensuing effectiveness from qualifying articles to establish consensus findings around a hypothesis. Their value is increasing as the conduct and publication of research and evaluation has expanded and the process of identifying key insights becomes more time consuming. Text analytics and machine learning (ML) techniques may help overcome this problem of scale while still maintaining the level of rigor expected of SRs.

methodsIn this article, we discuss an approach that uses existing examples of SRs to build and test a method for assisting the SR title and abstract pre-screening by reducing the initial pool of potential articles down to articles that meet inclusion criteria. Our approach differs from previous approaches to using ML as a SR tool in that it incorporates ML configurations guided by previously conducted SRs, and human confirmation on ML predictions of relevant articles during multiple iterative reviews on smaller tranches of citations. We applied the tailored method to a new SR review effort to validate performance.

resultsThe case study test of the approach proved a sensitivity (recall) in finding relevant articles during down selection that may rival many traditional processes and show ability to overcome most type II errors. The study achieved a sensitivity of 99.5% (213 out of 214) of total relevant articles while only conducting a human review of 31% of total articles available for review.

conclusionsWe believe this iterative method can help overcome bias in initial ML model training by having humans reinforce ML models with new and relevant information, and is an applied step towards transfer learning for ML in SR.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusMachine LearningHumansMass ScreeningResearch DesignApplied case studyMachine learningMachine learning configurationsNatural language processingSystematic review screeningTransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID33810798
PMCPMC8017891
OpenAlexW3113526370

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.