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.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic reviews of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 continue to be poorly conducted and reported: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Pooled it
- The landscape of artificial intelligence tools and platforms for evidence synthesis: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- The Phases of Living Evidence Synthesis Using AI AI: Living Evidence Synthesis (Version 1).Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence in food and nutrition evidence: The challenges and opportunities.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- The Challenges of Advance Care Planning for Acute Care Registered Nurses.The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres · 2024Article
- Applying the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) framework to evaluate automated evidence synthesis in health behaviour change.Journal of health psychology · 2024Review
- Using machine learning to extract information and predict outcomes from reports of randomised trials of smoking cessation interventions in the Human Behaviour-Change Project.Wellcome open research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
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
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.