ArticlePloS one2023
Bat4RCT: A suite of benchmark data and baseline methods for text classification of randomized controlled trials.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning for identifying randomised controlled trials when conducting systematic reviews: Development and evaluation of its impact on practice.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Article
- LERCause: Deep learning approaches for causal sentence identification from nuclear safety reports.PloS one · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) play a major role in aiding biomedical research and practices. To inform this research, the demand for highly accurate retrieval of scientific articles on RCT research has grown in recent decades. However, correctly identifying all published RCTs in a given domain is a non-trivial task, which has motivated computer scientists to develop methods for identifying papers involving RCTs. Although existing studies have provided invaluable insights into how RCT tags can be predicted for biomedicine research articles, they used datasets from different sources in varying sizes and timeframes and their models and findings cannot be compared across studies. In addition, as datasets and code are rarely shared, researchers who conduct RCT classification have to write code from scratch, reinventing the wheel. In this paper, we present Bat4RCT, a suite of data and an integrated method to serve as a strong baseline for RCT classification, which includes the use of BERT-based models in comparison with conventional machine learning techniques. To validate our approach, all models are applied on 500,000 paper records in MEDLINE. The BERT-based models showed consistently higher recall scores than conventional machine learning and CNN models while producing slightly better or similar precision scores. The best performance was achieved by the BioBERT model when trained on both title and abstract texts, with the F1 score of 90.85%. This infrastructure of dataset and code will provide a competitive baseline for the evaluation and comparison of new methods and the convenience of future benchmarking. To our best knowledge, our study is the first work to apply BERT-based language modeling techniques to RCT classification tasks and to share dataset and code in order to promote reproducibility and improvement in text classification in biomedicine research.
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.