Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35065679›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2022

Machine learning reduced workload for the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register: development and evaluation of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Classifier.

Ian Shemilt, Anna Noel-Storr, James Thomas, Robin Featherstone, Chris Mavergames

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Living evidence and adaptive policy: perfect partners?Health research policy and systems · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Searching for evidence in public health emergencies: a white paper of best practices.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023
    Article
  12. Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2023
    Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Ian ShemiltEPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, 18 Woburn Square, London, WC1H 0NR, UK.
Anna Noel-StorrRadcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Level 4, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK. anna.noel-storr@rdm.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3476-8432
James ThomasEPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, 18 Woburn Square, London, WC1H 0NR, UK.
Robin FeatherstoneEditorial & Methods Department, Cochrane, St Albans House, 57-59 Haymarket, London, SW1Y 4QX, UK.
Chris MavergamesInformatics & Technology Services, Cochrane, St Albans House, 57-59 Haymarket, London, SW1Y 4QX, UK.

Funding

cochrane NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study developed, calibrated and evaluated a machine learning (ML) classifier designed to reduce study identification workload in maintaining the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (CCSR), a continuously updated register of COVID-19 research studies.

methodsA ML classifier for retrieving COVID-19 research studies (the 'Cochrane COVID-19 Study Classifier') was developed using a data set of title-abstract records 'included' in, or 'excluded' from, the CCSR up to 18th October 2020, manually labelled by information and data curation specialists or the Cochrane Crowd. The classifier was then calibrated using a second data set of similar records 'included' in, or 'excluded' from, the CCSR between October 19 and December 2, 2020, aiming for 99% recall. Finally, the calibrated classifier was evaluated using a third data set of similar records 'included' in, or 'excluded' from, the CCSR between the 4th and 19th of January 2021.

resultsThe Cochrane COVID-19 Study Classifier was trained using 59,513 records (20,878 of which were 'included' in the CCSR). A classification threshold was set using 16,123 calibration records (6005 of which were 'included' in the CCSR) and the classifier had a precision of 0.52 in this data set at the target threshold recall >0.99. The final, calibrated COVID-19 classifier correctly retrieved 2285 (98.9%) of 2310 eligible records but missed 25 (1%), with a precision of 0.638 and a net screening workload reduction of 24.1% (1113 records correctly excluded).

conclusionsThe Cochrane COVID-19 Study Classifier reduces manual screening workload for identifying COVID-19 research studies, with a very low and acceptable risk of missing eligible studies. It is now deployed in the live study identification workflow for the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register.

Indexed as

COVID-19WorkloadData CollectionHumansMachine LearningSARS-CoV-2AutomationCochrane LibraryCOVID-19CrowdsourcingInformation retrievalMachine learningMethods/methodologySearchingStudy classifiersSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID35065679
PMCPMC8783177

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.