Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37340494›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2023

Performance of active learning models for screening prioritization in systematic reviews: a simulation study into the Average Time to Discover relevant records.

Gerbrich Ferdinands, Raoul Schram, Jonathan de Bruin, Ayoub Bagheri, Daniel L Oberski, Lars Tummers, Jelle Jasper Teijema, Rens van de Schoot

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 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Beyond uncertainty in modern active learning for trustworthy AI.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Gerbrich FerdinandsDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands. gerbrichferdinands@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-4998-3293
Raoul SchramDepartment of Research and Data Management Services, Information Technology Services, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jonathan de BruinDepartment of Research and Data Management Services, Information Technology Services, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ayoub BagheriDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Daniel L OberskiDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Lars TummersSchool of Governance, Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jelle Jasper TeijemaDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Rens van de SchootDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningSoftwareBayes TheoremComputer SimulationHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicActive learningComputer simulationData miningMachine learningScreening prioritizationSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID37340494
PMCPMC10280866

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.