Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35024621›Full record

ArticleCurrent research in food science2022

Automatic classification of literature in systematic reviews on food safety using machine learning.

Leonieke M van den Bulk, Yamine Bouzembrak, Anand Gavai, Ningjing Liu, Lukas J van den Heuvel, Hans J P Marvin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Leonieke M van den BulkWageningen Food Safety Research, Akkermaalsbos 2, 6708, WB, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Yamine BouzembrakWageningen Food Safety Research, Akkermaalsbos 2, 6708, WB, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Anand GavaiWageningen Food Safety Research, Akkermaalsbos 2, 6708, WB, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Ningjing LiuWageningen Food Safety Research, Akkermaalsbos 2, 6708, WB, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Lukas J van den HeuvelWageningen Food Safety Research, Akkermaalsbos 2, 6708, WB, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Hans J P MarvinWageningen Food Safety Research, Akkermaalsbos 2, 6708, WB, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceClassification modelsDocument screeningFood safety hazardsLiterature reviewsText mining

Identifiers

PMID35024621
PMCPMC8728304

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.