Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38548008›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2024

Automatic categorization of self-acknowledged limitations in randomized controlled trial publications.

Mengfei Lan, Mandy Cheng, Linh Hoang, Gerben Ter Riet, Halil Kilicoglu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mengfei LanSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 501 Daniel Street, Champaign, 61820, IL, USA.
Mandy ChengDepartment of Biological Sciences, Binghamton University, 4400 Vestal Parkway East, New York City, 13902, NY, USA.
Linh HoangSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 501 Daniel Street, Champaign, 61820, IL, USA.
Gerben Ter RietFaculty of Health, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Tafelbergweg 51, Amsterdam, 1105 BD, The Netherlands.
Halil KilicogluSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 501 Daniel Street, Champaign, 61820, IL, USA. Electronic address: halil@illinois.edu.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USAmsterdam University of Applied Sciences · NLBinghamton University · US

Funding

Computational Methods, Resources, and Tools to Assess Transparency and Rigor of Randomized Clinical TrialsR01LM014079 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI KILICOGLU, HALIL, MAYO-WILSON, EVAN · 2022 to 2025
$1.3M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM014079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAcknowledging study limitations in a scientific publication is a crucial element in scientific transparency and progress. However, limitation reporting is often inadequate. Natural language processing (NLP) methods could support automated reporting checks, improving research transparency. In this study, our objective was to develop a dataset and NLP methods to detect and categorize self-acknowledged limitations (e.g., sample size, blinding) reported in randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications.

methodsWe created a data model of limitation types in RCT studies and annotated a corpus of 200 full-text RCT publications using this data model. We fine-tuned BERT-based sentence classification models to recognize the limitation sentences and their types. To address the small size of the annotated corpus, we experimented with data augmentation approaches, including Easy Data Augmentation (EDA) and Prompt-Based Data Augmentation (PromDA). We applied the best-performing model to a set of about 12K RCT publications to characterize self-acknowledged limitations at larger scale.

resultsOur data model consists of 15 categories and 24 sub-categories (e.g., Population and its sub-category DiagnosticCriteria). We annotated 1090 instances of limitation types in 952 sentences (4.8 limitation sentences and 5.5 limitation types per article). A fine-tuned PubMedBERT model for limitation sentence classification improved upon our earlier model by about 1.5 absolute percentage points in F

conclusionThe model could support automated screening tools which can be used by journals to draw the authors' attention to reporting issues. Automatic extraction of limitations from RCT publications could benefit peer review and evidence synthesis, and support advanced methods to search and aggregate the evidence from the clinical trial literature.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingPublicationsLanguageRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample SizeLarge language modelsNatural language processingRandomized controlled trialsReporting qualitySelf-acknowledged limitationsText classification

Identifiers

PMID38548008
PMCPMC11807350
OpenAlexW4393187322

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.