SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
Automatic data extraction to support meta-analysis statistical analysis: a case study on breast cancer.
Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Transforming evidence synthesis: A systematic review of the evolution of automated meta-analysis in the age of AI.Research synthesis methods · 2026Pooled it
- Generative artificial intelligence use in evidence synthesis: A systematic review.Research synthesis methods · 2025Pooled it
- The emergence of large language models as tools in literature reviews: a large language model-assisted systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of a prototype machine learning tool to semi-automate data extraction for systematic literature reviews.Systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- How Often Do Large Language Models Agree with Each Other-And with the Truth? A Consensus- and Complexity-Stratified Analysis of Data Extraction for Neuroimaging AI.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Profiles of artificial intelligence literacy and associations with evidence-based practice competence among nurses: a latent profile analysis.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating the reliability of large language models for clinical data extraction in bladder cancer prognosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Large language models in clinical trials: applications, technical advances, and future directions.BMC medicine · 2025Review
- Natural Language Processing in Support of Evidence-based Medicine: A Scoping Review.Findings of ACL. ACL · 2025Article
- Semi-supervised learning from small annotated data and large unlabeled data for fine-grained Participants, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes entity recognition.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Evaluation of RMES, an Automated Software Tool Utilizing AI, for Literature Screening with Reference to Published Systematic Reviews as Case-Studies: Development and Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- A multi-source heterogeneous medical data enhancement framework based on lakehouse.Health information science and systems · 2024Article
- A Narrative Review on the Application of Large Language Models to Support Cancer Care and Research.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- Automatically Extracting Numerical Results from Randomized Controlled Trials with Large Language Models.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2024Article
- Insights into the nutritional prevention of macular degeneration based on a comparative topic modeling approach.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
- Surgical procedure long terms recognition from Chinese literature incorporating structural feature.Heliyon · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeta-analyses aggregate results of different clinical studies to assess the effectiveness of a treatment. Despite their importance, meta-analyses are time-consuming and labor-intensive as they involve reading hundreds of research articles and extracting data. The number of research articles is increasing rapidly and most meta-analyses are outdated shortly after publication as new evidence has not been included. Automatic extraction of data from research articles can expedite the meta-analysis process and allow for automatic updates when new results become available. In this study, we propose a system for automatically extracting data from research abstracts and performing statistical analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsOur corpus consists of 1011 PubMed abstracts of breast cancer randomized controlled trials annotated with the core elements of clinical trials: Participants, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO). We proposed a BERT-based named entity recognition (NER) model to identify PICO information from research abstracts. After extracting the PICO information, we parse numeric outcomes to identify the number of patients having certain outcomes for statistical analysis.
resultsThe NER model extracted PICO elements with relatively high accuracy, achieving F1-scores greater than 0.80 in most entities. We assessed the performance of the proposed system by reproducing the results of an existing meta-analysis. The data extraction step achieved high accuracy, however the statistical analysis step achieved low performance because abstracts sometimes lack all the required information.
conclusionWe proposed a system for automatically extracting data from research abstracts and performing statistical analysis. We evaluated the performance of the system by reproducing an existing meta-analysis and the system achieved a relatively good performance, though more substantiation is required.
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.