Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37277872›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2023

Ensemble of deep learning language models to support the creation of living systematic reviews for the COVID-19 literature.

Julien Knafou, Quentin Haas, Nikolay Borissov, Michel Counotte, Nicola Low, Hira Imeri, Aziz Mert Ipekci, Diana Buitrago-Garcia, Leonie Heron, Poorya Amini and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Enhancing the SIB Literature Services (SIBiLS) with annotations to support biocuration.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

11 authors.

Julien KnafouUniversity of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland (HES-SO), Rue de la Tambourine 17, 1227, Geneva, Switzerland. julien.knafou@hesge.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-9086-4982
Quentin HaasRisklick AG, Bern, Switzerland.
Nikolay BorissovUniversity of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland (HES-SO), Rue de la Tambourine 17, 1227, Geneva, Switzerland.
Michel CounotteInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Nicola LowInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Hira ImeriInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Aziz Mert IpekciInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Diana Buitrago-GarciaInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Leonie HeronInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Poorya AminiRisklick AG, Bern, Switzerland.
Douglas TeodoroUniversity of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland (HES-SO), Rue de la Tambourine 17, 1227, Geneva, Switzerland. douglas.teodoro@unige.ch.

Funding

CIHR 404896
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented amount of scientific publications, growing at a pace never seen before. Multiple living systematic reviews have been developed to assist professionals with up-to-date and trustworthy health information, but it is increasingly challenging for systematic reviewers to keep up with the evidence in electronic databases. We aimed to investigate deep learning-based machine learning algorithms to classify COVID-19-related publications to help scale up the epidemiological curation process.

methodsIn this retrospective study, five different pre-trained deep learning-based language models were fine-tuned on a dataset of 6365 publications manually classified into two classes, three subclasses, and 22 sub-subclasses relevant for epidemiological triage purposes. In a k-fold cross-validation setting, each standalone model was assessed on a classification task and compared against an ensemble, which takes the standalone model predictions as input and uses different strategies to infer the optimal article class. A ranking task was also considered, in which the model outputs a ranked list of sub-subclasses associated with the article.

resultsThe ensemble model significantly outperformed the standalone classifiers, achieving a F1-score of 89.2 at the class level of the classification task. The difference between the standalone and ensemble models increases at the sub-subclass level, where the ensemble reaches a micro F1-score of 70% against 67% for the best-performing standalone model. For the ranking task, the ensemble obtained the highest recall@3, with a performance of 89%. Using an unanimity voting rule, the ensemble can provide predictions with higher confidence on a subset of the data, achieving detection of original papers with a F1-score up to 97% on a subset of 80% of the collection instead of 93% on the whole dataset.

conclusionThis study shows the potential of using deep learning language models to perform triage of COVID-19 references efficiently and support epidemiological curation and review. The ensemble consistently and significantly outperforms any standalone model. Fine-tuning the voting strategy thresholds is an interesting alternative to annotate a subset with higher predictive confidence.

Indexed as

COVID-19Deep LearningHumansLanguagePandemicsRetrospective StudiesCOVID-19Deep learningLanguage modelLiterature screeningLiving systematic reviewText classificationTransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID37277872
PMCPMC10240481

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.