Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34390193›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2021

Training sample selection: Impact on screening automation in diagnostic test accuracy reviews.

Allard J van Altena, René Spijker, Mariska M G Leeflang, Sílvia Delgado Olabarriaga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Allard J van AltenaDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8148-4654
René SpijkerMedical Library, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mariska M G LeeflangDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sílvia Delgado OlabarriagaDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When performing a systematic review, researchers screen the articles retrieved after a broad search strategy one by one, which is time-consuming. Computerised support of this screening process has been applied with varying success. This is partly due to the dependency on large amounts of data to develop models that predict inclusion. In this paper, we present an approach to choose which data to use in model training and compare it with established approaches. We used a dataset of 50 Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews, and each was used as a target review. From the remaining 49 reviews, we selected those that most closely resembled the target review's clinical topic using the cosine similarity metric. Included and excluded studies from these selected reviews were then used to develop our prediction models. The performance of models trained on the selected reviews was compared against models trained on studies from all available reviews. The prediction models performed best with a larger number of reviews in the training set and on target reviews that had a research subject similar to other reviews in the dataset. Our approach using cosine similarity may reduce computational costs for model training and the duration of the screening process.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineResearchAutomationSystematic Reviews as Topiccomputerised supportcosine similaritymachine learningscreening automationtraining sample selection

Identifiers

PMID34390193
PMCPMC9292892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.