ArticleCurrent research in food science2022
Automatic classification of literature in systematic reviews on food safety using machine learning.
Article in Current research in food science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Food Safety and Quality Assurance: Technologies, Applications and Future Directions.Food science & nutrition · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence Resources for the Screening of Titles and Abstracts in Systematic Reviews: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Article
- Exploring the broad spectrum of machine learning technologies in the food sector: A comprehensive review of techniques and practical applications.Current research in food science · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for the science of evidence synthesis: how good are AI-powered tools for automatic literature screening?BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Automated tools for systematic review screening methods: an application of machine learning for sexual orientation and gender identity measurement in health research.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025Article
- Categorization of drivers of change for emerging food safety risks.Current research in food science · 2025Article
- Automation of systematic reviews of biomedical literature: a scoping review of studies indexed in PubMed.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews are used to collect relevant literature to answer a research question in a way that is clear, thorough, unbiased and reproducible. They are implemented as a standard method in the domain of food safety to obtain a literature overview on the state-of-the-art research related to food safety topics of interest. A disadvantage to systematic reviews, however, is that this process is time-consuming and requires expert domain knowledge. The work reported here aims to reduce the time needed by an expert to screen all possible relevant articles by applying machine learning techniques to classify the articles automatically as either relevant or not relevant. Eight different machine learning algorithms and ensembles of all combinations of these algorithms were tested on two different systematic reviews on food safety (i.e. chemical hazards in cereals and leafy greens). The results showed that the best performance was obtained by an ensemble of naive Bayes and a support vector machine, resulting in an average decrease of 32.8% in the amount of articles the expert has to read and an average decrease in irrelevant articles of 57.8% while keeping 95% of the relevant articles. It was concluded that automatic classification of the literature in a systematic literature review can support experts in their task and save valuable time without compromising the quality of the review.
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.