ArticleSystematic reviews2022
PICO entity extraction for preclinical animal literature.
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 12 papers, 5 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nutritional and phytogenic modulation of caprine physiology: a systematic review ofFrontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled 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
- Systematic online living evidence summaries: emerging tools to accelerate evidence synthesis.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2023Pooled it
- Screening for in vitro systematic reviews: a comparison of screening methods and training of a machine learning classifier.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2023Pooled it
- Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review.F1000Research · 2021Pooled it
- A span-based model for extracting overlapping PICO entities from randomized controlled trial publications.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Trial
- Advancing Evidence-Based Medicine for Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome Element Recognition and Extraction in Medical Literature: Large Language Model Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Large language models in clinical trials: applications, technical advances, and future directions.BMC medicine · 2025Review
- Using artificial intelligence tools to automate data extraction for living evidence syntheses.PloS one · 2025Article
- Review
- A Systematic Online Living Evidence Summary of experimental Alzheimer's disease research.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2024Article
- 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNatural language processing could assist multiple tasks in systematic reviews to reduce workflow, including the extraction of PICO elements such as study populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes. The PICO framework provides a basis for the retrieval and selection for inclusion of evidence relevant to a specific systematic review question, and automatic approaches to PICO extraction have been developed particularly for reviews of clinical trial findings. Considering the difference between preclinical animal studies and clinical trials, developing separate approaches is necessary. Facilitating preclinical systematic reviews will inform the translation from preclinical to clinical research.
methodsWe randomly selected 400 abstracts from the PubMed Central Open Access database which described in vivo animal research and manually annotated these with PICO phrases for Species, Strain, methods of Induction of disease model, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome. We developed a two-stage workflow for preclinical PICO extraction. Firstly we fine-tuned BERT with different pre-trained modules for PICO sentence classification. Then, after removing the text irrelevant to PICO features, we explored LSTM-, CRF- and BERT-based models for PICO entity recognition. We also explored a self-training approach because of the small training corpus.
resultsFor PICO sentence classification, BERT models using all pre-trained modules achieved an F1 score of over 80%, and models pre-trained on PubMed abstracts achieved the highest F1 of 85%. For PICO entity recognition, fine-tuning BERT pre-trained on PubMed abstracts achieved an overall F1 of 71% and satisfactory F1 for Species (98%), Strain (70%), Intervention (70%) and Outcome (67%). The score of Induction and Comparator is less satisfactory, but F1 of Comparator can be improved to 50% by applying self-training.
conclusionsOur study indicates that of the approaches tested, BERT pre-trained on PubMed abstracts is the best for both PICO sentence classification and PICO entity recognition in the preclinical abstracts. Self-training yields better performance for identifying comparators and strains.
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.