ArticleResearch synthesis methods2022
Applying machine classifiers to update searches: Analysis from two case studies.
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 12 papers, 2 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- How effective are remote and/or digital interventions as part of alcohol and drug treatment and recovery support? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2025Pooled it
- How much can we save by applying artificial intelligence in evidence synthesis? Results from a pragmatic review to quantify workload efficiencies and cost savings.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Mapping Evidence on Care Interventions for People Living With Motor Neurone Disease: A Protocol for a Living Evidence and Gap Map.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2026Article
- Evidence surveillance for a living clinical guideline: Case study of the Australian stroke guidelines.Health information and libraries journal · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Automation in Evidence Synthesis: An Investigation of Methods Employed in Cochrane, Campbell Collaboration, and Environmental Evidence Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to Improve Evidence Synthesis Production Efficiency: An Observational Study of Resource Use and Time-to-Completion.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Using artificial intelligence tools to automate data extraction for living evidence syntheses.PloS one · 2025Article
- Computer-assisted screening in systematic evidence synthesis requires robust and well-evaluated stopping criteria.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Automation of systematic reviews of biomedical literature: a scoping review of studies indexed in PubMed.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- The use of text-mining software to facilitate screening of literature on centredness in health care.Systematic reviews · 2023Review
- The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Applying machine classifiers to update searches: Analysis from two case studies.Research synthesis methods · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Manual screening of citation records could be reduced by using machine classifiers to remove records of very low relevance. This seems particularly feasible for update searches, where a machine classifier can be trained from past screening decisions. However, feasibility is unclear for broad topics. We evaluate the performance and implementation of machine classifiers for update searches of public health research using two case studies. The first study evaluates the impact of using different sets of training data on classifier performance, comparing recall and screening reduction with a manual screening 'gold standard'. The second study uses screening decisions from a review to train a classifier that is applied to rank the update search results. A stopping threshold was applied in the absence of a gold standard. Time spent screening titles and abstracts of different relevancy-ranked records was measured. Results: Study one: Classifier performance varies according to the training data used; all custom-built classifiers had a recall above 93% at the same threshold, achieving screening reductions between 41% and 74%. Study two: applying a classifier provided a solution for tackling a large volume of search results from the update search, and screening volume was reduced by 61%. A tentative estimate indicates over 25 h screening time was saved. In conclusion, custom-built machine classifiers are feasible for reducing screening workload from update searches across a range of public health interventions, with some limitation on recall. Key considerations include selecting a training dataset, agreeing stopping thresholds and processes to ensure smooth workflows.
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.