ArticleResearch synthesis methods2022
Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The emergence of large language models as tools in literature reviews: a large language model-assisted systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic online living evidence summaries: emerging tools to accelerate evidence synthesis.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2023Pooled it
- Screening for in vitro systematic reviews: a comparison of screening methods and training of a machine learning classifier.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2023Pooled it
- RoBuster-Corpus Annotated With Risk of Bias Text Spans in Randomized Controlled Trials in Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation: Corpus Development and Annotation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Use as directed? A comparison of software tools intended to check rigor and transparency of published work.PloS one · 2026Article
- Assessing risk of bias in toxicological studies in the era of artificial intelligence.Archives of toxicology · 2025Review
- Using a large language model (ChatGPT) to assess risk of bias in randomized controlled trials of medical interventions: protocol for a pilot study of interrater agreement with human reviewers.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- More ethics in the laboratory, please! Scientists' perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- Using artificial intelligence tools to automate data extraction for living evidence syntheses.PloS one · 2025Article
- A Systematic Online Living Evidence Summary of experimental Alzheimer's disease research.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2024Article
- Automation of systematic reviews of biomedical literature: a scoping review of studies indexed in PubMed.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- STEED: A data mining tool for automated extraction of experimental parameters and risk of bias items from in vivo publications.PloS one · 2024Article
- From data deluge to publomics: How AI can transform animal research.Lab animal · 2023Article
- Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing.Research synthesis methods · 2022Article
- Technological advances in preclinical meta-research.BMJ open science · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We sought to apply natural language processing to the task of automatic risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature, which could speed the process of systematic review, provide information to guide research improvement activity, and support translation from preclinical to clinical research. We use 7840 full-text publications describing animal experiments with yes/no annotations for five risk of bias items. We implement a series of models including baselines (support vector machine, logistic regression, random forest), neural models (convolutional neural network, recurrent neural network with attention, hierarchical neural network) and models using BERT with two strategies (document chunk pooling and sentence extraction). We tune hyperparameters to obtain the highest F1 scores for each risk of bias item on the validation set and compare evaluation results on the test set to our previous regular expression approach. The F1 scores of best models on test set are 82.0% for random allocation, 81.6% for blinded assessment of outcome, 82.6% for conflict of interests, 91.4% for compliance with animal welfare regulations and 46.6% for reporting animals excluded from analysis. Our models significantly outperform regular expressions for four risk of bias items. For random allocation, blinded assessment of outcome, conflict of interests and animal exclusions, neural models achieve good performance; for animal welfare regulations, BERT model with a sentence extraction strategy works better. Convolutional neural networks are the overall best models. The tool is publicly available which may contribute to the future monitoring of risk of bias reporting for research improvement activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.