Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34709718›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2022

Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing.

Qianying Wang, Jing Liao, Mirella Lapata, Malcolm Macleod

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Qianying WangCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7779-6815
Jing LiaoCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9591-8070
Mirella LapataSchool of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2107-1516
Malcolm MacleodCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9187-9839

Funding

China Scholarship CouncilMedical Research Council MR/N015665/1National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/L000970/1UK Reproducibility Network - John Climax PhD studentshipUniversity of Edinburgh - Edinburgh Global Research Scholarship
6 · The paper itself

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

Natural Language ProcessingNeural Networks, ComputerSupport Vector Machineautomatic assessmentnatural language processingpreclinical research synthesisrisk of bias

Identifiers

PMID34709718
PMCPMC9298308

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.