ArticleJMIR formative research2024
Use of Machine Learning Tools in Evidence Synthesis of Tobacco Use Among Sexual and Gender Diverse Populations: Algorithm Development and Validation.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFrom 2016 to 2021, the volume of peer-reviewed publications related to tobacco has experienced a significant increase. This presents a considerable challenge in efficiently summarizing, synthesizing, and disseminating research findings, especially when it comes to addressing specific target populations, such as the LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, Two Spirit, and other persons who identify as part of this community) populations.
objectiveIn order to expedite evidence synthesis and research gap discoveries, this pilot study has the following three aims: (1) to compile a specialized semantic database for tobacco policy research to extract information from journal article abstracts, (2) to develop natural language processing (NLP) algorithms that comprehend the literature on nicotine and tobacco product use among sexual and gender diverse populations, and (3) to compare the discoveries of the NLP algorithms with an ongoing systematic review of tobacco policy research among LGBTQ+ populations.
methodsWe built a tobacco research domain-specific semantic database using data from 2993 paper abstracts from 4 leading tobacco-specific journals, with enrichment from other publicly available sources. We then trained an NLP model to extract named entities after learning patterns and relationships between words and their context in text, which further enriched the semantic database. Using this iterative process, we extracted and assessed studies relevant to LGBTQ+ tobacco control issues, further comparing our findings with an ongoing systematic review that also focuses on evidence synthesis for this demographic group.
resultsIn total, 33 studies were identified as relevant to sexual and gender diverse individuals' nicotine and tobacco product use. Consistent with the ongoing systematic review, the NLP results showed that there is a scarcity of studies assessing policy impact on this demographic using causal inference methods. In addition, the literature is dominated by US data. We found that the product drawing the most attention in the body of existing research is cigarettes or cigarette smoking and that the number of studies of various age groups is almost evenly distributed between youth or young adults and adults, consistent with the research needs identified by the US health agencies.
conclusionsOur pilot study serves as a compelling demonstration of the capabilities of NLP tools in expediting the processes of evidence synthesis and the identification of research gaps. While future research is needed to statistically test the NLP tool's performance, there is potential for NLP tools to fundamentally transform the approach to evidence synthesis.
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.