Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38368379›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2024

Addressing the challenges of reconstructing systematic reviews datasets: a case study and a noisy label filter procedure.

Rutger Neeleman, Cathalijn H C Leenaars, Matthijs Oud, Felix Weijdema, Rens van de Schoot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Rutger NeelemanDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0005-3824-8727
Cathalijn H C LeenaarsInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Matthijs OudDepartment Care and Participation, Trimbos-Institute, Da Costakade 45, 3521 VS, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Felix WeijdemaUtrecht University Library, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Rens van de SchootDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. a.g.j.vandeschoot@uu.nl.

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 406.22.GO.048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses typically require significant time and effort. Machine learning models have the potential to enhance screening efficiency in these processes. To effectively evaluate such models, fully labeled datasets-detailing all records screened by humans and their labeling decisions-are imperative. This paper presents the creation of a comprehensive dataset for a systematic review of treatments for Borderline Personality Disorder, as reported by Oud et al. (2018) for running a simulation study. The authors adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and published both the search query and the list of included records, but the complete dataset with all labels was not disclosed. We replicated their search and, facing the absence of initial screening data, introduced a Noisy Label Filter (NLF) procedure using active learning to validate noisy labels. Following the NLF application, no further relevant records were found. A simulation study employing the reconstructed dataset demonstrated that active learning could reduce screening time by 82.30% compared to random reading. The paper discusses potential causes for discrepancies, provides recommendations, and introduces a decision tree to assist in reconstructing datasets for the purpose of running simulation studies.

Indexed as

Systematic Reviews as TopicBorderline Personality DisorderDatasets as TopicHumansMachine LearningMeta-Analysis as TopicActive learningASReviewNoisily labeled recordsReplicationSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID38368379
PMCPMC10874047

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.