Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38985296›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2024

Machine learning enables automated screening for systematic reviews and meta-analysis in urology.

H S Menold, V L S Wieland, C M Haney, D Uysal, F Wessels, G C Cacciamani, M S Michel, S Seide, K F Kowalewski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

9 authors.

H S MenoldDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
V L S WielandDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
C M HaneyDepartment of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
D UysalDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
F WesselsDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
G C CacciamaniUSC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, ©, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
M S MichelDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
S SeideBöhringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim am Rhein,, Germany.
K F KowalewskiDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. karl-friedrich.kowalewski@umm.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2931-6247

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate and implement semiautomated screening for meta-analyses (MA) in urology under consideration of class imbalance.

methodsMachine learning algorithms were trained on data from three MA with detailed information of the screening process. Different methods to account for class imbalance (Sampling (up- and downsampling, weighting and cost-sensitive learning), thresholding) were implemented in different machine learning (ML) algorithms (Random Forest, Logistic Regression with Elastic Net Regularization, Support Vector Machines). Models were optimized for sensitivity. Besides metrics such as specificity, receiver operating curves, total missed studies, and work saved over sampling were calculated.

resultsDuring training, models trained after downsampling achieved the best results consistently among all algorithms. Computing time ranged between 251 and 5834 s. However, when evaluated on the final test data set, the weighting approach performed best. In addition, thresholding helped to improve results as compared to the standard of 0.5. However, due to heterogeneity of results no clear recommendation can be made for a universal sample size. Misses of relevant studies were 0 for the optimized models except for one review.

conclusionIt will be necessary to design a holistic methodology that implements the presented methods in a practical manner, but also takes into account other algorithms and the most sophisticated methods for text preprocessing. In addition, the different methods of a cost-sensitive learning approach can be the subject of further investigations.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMeta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicUrologyAlgorithmsHumansMachine learning algorithmsMeta-analysisSystematic reviewsUrology

Identifiers

PMID38985296
PMCPMC11236840

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.