ArticleSystematic reviews2022
Machine learning reduced workload for the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register: development and evaluation of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Classifier.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic reviews of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 continue to be poorly conducted and reported: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Pooled it
- Application of Machine Learning Classifiers in Rapid Reviews for Health Research: A Case Example Using EPPI-Reviewer.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Machine learning-enabled systematic review on coded healthcare data in heart failure research.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- The NICE search filters for treating and managing COVID-19: validation in MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid).Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Designing, refining and reflecting on 3 years of daily evidence surveillance for Australia's living national COVID-19 guidelines.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Learning health systems and evidence ecosystems: a perspective on the future of evidence-based medicine and evidence-based guideline development.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Cognitive bias modification for social anxiety: protocol for a living systematic review of human studies and meta-analysis.Wellcome open research · 2024Article
- Living evidence and adaptive policy: perfect partners?Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Searching for evidence in public health emergencies: a white paper of best practices.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- Secondary electronic sources demonstrated very good sensitivity for identifying studies evaluating interventions for COVID-19.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.