ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Addressing the challenges of reconstructing systematic reviews datasets: a case study and a noisy label filter procedure.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The role of synovial mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes in cartilage repair: a systematic review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Screenathon 2.0: human-AI collaborative screening applied to patient-generated health data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Associations between self-reported symptoms and circulating protein biomarkers: A scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2026Article
- The hunt for the last relevant paper: blending the best of humans and AI.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2025Article
- ASReview LAB v.2: Open-source text screening with multiple agents and a crowd of experts.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Addressing the challenges of reconstructing systematic reviews datasets: a case study and a noisy label filter procedure.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.