ArticleSystematic reviews2023
Performance of active learning models for screening prioritization in systematic reviews: a simulation study into the Average Time to Discover relevant records.
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 46 papers, 2 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
46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Association between child and youth physical activity and family functioning: a systematic review of observational studies.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical Validity and Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) Testing in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (aNSCLC): A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2024 · on this mapPooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Resources for the Screening of Titles and Abstracts in Systematic Reviews: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Toward Automating the Selection of Articles Reporting EQ-5D Data for Systematic Literature Reviews Using Large Language Models: Algorithm Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Performance of Two AI Approaches in ASReview Compared With Manual Screening for Dementia Care Literature Screening: Comparative Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- A comparative scoping review approach: identifying the intersection of carbon, biodiversity, and water offsetting.MethodsX · 2026Article
- The AI risk repository: A meta-review, database, and taxonomy of risks from artificial intelligence.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Strategizing AI utilization for psychological literature screening: A comparative analysis of machine learning algorithms and key factors to consider.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- To include or not to include? A prescription from the pharmacy on how to use active learning-assisted screening in systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Comparing the performance of narrow vs. broad search strategies when using machine learning-based software for title/abstract screening.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Tools for Automating Evidence Synthesis: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Screenathon 2.0: human-AI collaborative screening applied to patient-generated health data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A hybrid approach to large-scale systematic literature reviews: combining automated tools with text-mining techniques.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Associations between self-reported symptoms and circulating protein biomarkers: A scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2026Article
- Beyond uncertainty in modern active learning for trustworthy AI.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Determinants and outcomes of advanced practice nurses' leadership behaviours: an AI-aided mixed-methods systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- The hunt for the last relevant paper: blending the best of humans and AI.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2025Article
- Using Artificial Intelligence for Text Screening in a Systematic Review of Cardiotoxicity.European urology open science · 2025Article
- A Study Protocol for a Comprehensive Evaluation of Two Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Title and Abstract Screening for the Development of Evidence-Based Cancer Guidelines.Cancer innovation · 2025Article
- ASReview LAB v.2: Open-source text screening with multiple agents and a crowd of experts.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConducting a systematic review demands a significant amount of effort in screening titles and abstracts. To accelerate this process, various tools that utilize active learning have been proposed. These tools allow the reviewer to interact with machine learning software to identify relevant publications as early as possible. The goal of this study is to gain a comprehensive understanding of active learning models for reducing the workload in systematic reviews through a simulation study.
methodsThe simulation study mimics the process of a human reviewer screening records while interacting with an active learning model. Different active learning models were compared based on four classification techniques (naive Bayes, logistic regression, support vector machines, and random forest) and two feature extraction strategies (TF-IDF and doc2vec). The performance of the models was compared for six systematic review datasets from different research areas. The evaluation of the models was based on the Work Saved over Sampling (WSS) and recall. Additionally, this study introduces two new statistics, Time to Discovery (TD) and Average Time to Discovery (ATD).
resultsThe models reduce the number of publications needed to screen by 91.7 to 63.9% while still finding 95% of all relevant records (WSS@95). Recall of the models was defined as the proportion of relevant records found after screening 10% of of all records and ranges from 53.6 to 99.8%. The ATD values range from 1.4% till 11.7%, which indicate the average proportion of labeling decisions the researcher needs to make to detect a relevant record. The ATD values display a similar ranking across the simulations as the recall and WSS values.
conclusionsActive learning models for screening prioritization demonstrate significant potential for reducing the workload in systematic reviews. The Naive Bayes + TF-IDF model yielded the best results overall. The Average Time to Discovery (ATD) measures performance of active learning models throughout the entire screening process without the need for an arbitrary cut-off point. This makes the ATD a promising metric for comparing the performance of different models across different datasets.
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.