Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38686019›Full record

ArticleWellcome open research2021

Cost-effectiveness of Microsoft Academic Graph with machine learning for automated study identification in a living map of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research.

Ian Shemilt, Anneliese Arno, James Thomas, Theo Lorenc, Claire Khouja, Gary Raine, Katy Sutcliffe, D'Souza Preethy, Irene Kwan, Kath Wright and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wellcome open research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Challenges of Advance Care Planning for Acute Care Registered Nurses.The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

11 authors.

Ian Shemilt *EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, London, WC1H 0NR, UK.
Anneliese Arno *EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, London, WC1H 0NR, UK.
James Thomas *EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, London, WC1H 0NR, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4805-4190
Theo LorencCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK, York, Yorkshire, UK.
Claire KhoujaCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK, York, Yorkshire, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9571-3147
Gary RaineCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK, York, Yorkshire, UK.
Katy SutcliffeEPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, London, WC1H 0NR, UK.
D'Souza PreethyEPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, London, WC1H 0NR, UK.
Irene KwanEPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, London, WC1H 0NR, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2981-2814
Kath WrightCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK, York, Yorkshire, UK.
Amanda SowdenCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK, York, Yorkshire, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Identifying new, eligible studies for integration into living systematic reviews and maps usually relies on conventional Boolean updating searches of multiple databases and manual processing of the updated results. Automated searches of one, comprehensive, continuously updated source, with adjunctive machine learning, could enable more efficient searching, selection and prioritisation workflows for updating (living) reviews and maps, though research is needed to establish this. Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) is a potentially comprehensive single source which also contains metadata that can be used in machine learning to help efficiently identify eligible studies. This study sought to establish whether: (a) MAG was a sufficiently sensitive single source to maintain our living map of COVID-19 research; and (b) eligible records could be identified with an acceptably high level of specificity. Methods: We conducted an eight-arm cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the costs, recall and precision of semi-automated workflows, incorporating MAG with adjunctive machine learning, for continually updating our living map. Resource use data (time use) were collected from information specialists and other researchers involved in map production. Our systematic review software, EPPI-Reviewer, was adapted to incorporate MAG and associated machine learning workflows, and also used to collect data on recall, precision, and manual screening workload. Results: The semi-automated MAG-enabled workflow dominated conventional workflows in both the base case and sensitivity analyses. At one month our MAG-enabled workflow with machine learning, active learning and fixed screening targets identified 469 additional, eligible articles for inclusion in our living map, and cost £3,179 GBP per week less, compared with conventional methods relying on Boolean searches of Medline and Embase. Conclusions: We were able to increase recall and coverage of a large living map, whilst reducing its production costs. This finding is likely to be transferrable to OpenAlex, MAG's successor database platform.

Indexed as

Automationevidence synthesismachine learningsystematic mapsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38686019
PMCPMC11056680

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.