ArticleDelaware journal of public health2023
Machine Learning Methods for Systematic Reviews:: A Rapid Scoping Review.
Article in Delaware journal of public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- MacAma: Multi-AI Agent as a Co-Scientist for Automated Meta-Analysis.Smart medicine · 2026Article
- Evidence-to-Decision Frameworks: Enhancing the Quality and Rigour of Guidelines and Recommendations.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) Readiness to Support Evidence Synthesis by Workflow: Findings From a Review of Reviews.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Air pollution-related health impacts from domestic waste burning and associated interventions: the merits of a traditional versus machine learning scoping review methodology.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Tools for Automating Evidence Synthesis: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Searching smarter, not harder: leveraging AI to enhance literature searches for theory-driven reviews-A methodological case study.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Prehabilitation for lumbar spinal stenosis: understanding mechanisms and contexts for enhanced engagement-a realist review.Age and ageing · 2025Review
- Evaluating a large language model's ability to answer clinicians' requests for evidence summaries.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025Article
- Evaluation of RMES, an Automated Software Tool Utilizing AI, for Literature Screening with Reference to Published Systematic Reviews as Case-Studies: Development and Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: At the forefront of machine learning research since its inception has been natural language processing, also known as text mining, referring to a wide range of statistical processes for analyzing textual data and retrieving information. In medical fields, text mining has made valuable contributions in unexpected ways, not least by synthesizing data from disparate biomedical studies. This rapid scoping review examines how machine learning methods for text mining can be implemented at the intersection of these disparate fields to improve the workflow and process of conducting systematic reviews in medical research and related academic disciplines. Methods: The primary research question that this investigation asked, "what impact does the use of machine learning have on the methods used by systematic review teams to carry out the systematic review process, such as the precision of search strategies, unbiased article selection or data abstraction and/or analysis for systematic reviews and other comprehensive review types of similar methodology?" A literature search was conducted by a medical librarian utilizing multiple databases, a grey literature search and handsearching of the literature. The search was completed on December 4, 2020. Handsearching was done on an ongoing basis with an end date of April 14, 2023. Results: The search yielded 23,190 studies after duplicates were removed. As a result, 117 studies (1.70%) met eligibility criteria for inclusion in this rapid scoping review. Conclusions: There are several techniques and/or types of machine learning methods in development or that have already been fully developed to assist with the systematic review stages. Combined with human intelligence, these machine learning methods and tools provide promise for making the systematic review process more efficient, saving valuable time for systematic review authors, and increasing the speed in which evidence can be created and placed in the hands of decision makers and the public.
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.