ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Boosting efficiency in a clinical literature surveillance system with LightGBM.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tree-based machine learning models recover rule-based flare labels from virtual symptom diaries in pediatric Behçet's disease: an in silico proof-of-concept study.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Understanding Transformer-Based Classifications of Medical Text Using a Large Language Model for the Attribution of Feature Importance: Proof-of-Concept Algorithm Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Predicting survival of Hodgkin lymphoma using machine learning-an analysis based on the SEER database.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- Article
- Zero-shot interpretable biomedical literature appraisal with generative large language models.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Explainable artificial intelligence for predicting dengue outbreaks in Bangladesh using eco-climatic triggers.Global epidemiology · 2025Article
- Assessing serum thrombopoietin for enhanced diagnosis of ITP, AA, and MDS using machine learning: A retrospective cohort study.Annals of hematology · 2025Article
- A Novel Explainable Attention-Based Meta-Learning Framework for Imbalanced Brain Stroke Prediction.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Differential diagnosis of eczema and psoriasis using routine clinical data and machine learning: development of a web-based tool in a multicenter outpatient cohort.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Analysis of cultivated land degradation in southern China: diagnostics, drivers, and restoration solutions.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Particle swarm optimization-based NLP methods for optimizing automatic document classification and retrieval.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the suboptimal performance of Boolean searching to identify methodologically sound and clinically relevant studies in large bibliographic databases, exploring machine learning (ML) to efficiently classify studies is warranted. To boost the efficiency of a literature surveillance program, we used a large internationally recognized dataset of articles tagged for methodological rigor and applied an automated ML approach to train and test binary classification models to predict the probability of clinical research articles being of high methodologic quality. We trained over 12,000 models on a dataset of titles and abstracts of 97,805 articles indexed in PubMed from 2012-2018 which were manually appraised for rigor by highly trained research associates and rated for clinical relevancy by practicing clinicians. As the dataset is unbalanced, with more articles that do not meet the criteria for rigor, we used the unbalanced dataset and over- and under-sampled datasets. Models that maintained sensitivity for high rigor at 99% and maximized specificity were selected and tested in a retrospective set of 30,424 articles from 2020 and validated prospectively in a blinded study of 5253 articles. The final selected algorithm, combining a LightGBM (gradient boosting machine) model trained in each dataset, maintained high sensitivity and achieved 57% specificity in the retrospective validation test and 53% in the prospective study. The number of articles needed to read to find one that met appraisal criteria was 3.68 (95% CI 3.52 to 3.85) in the prospective study, compared with 4.63 (95% CI 4.50 to 4.77) when relying only on Boolean searching. Gradient-boosting ML models reduced the work required to classify high quality clinical research studies by 45%, improving the efficiency of literature surveillance and subsequent dissemination to clinicians and other evidence users.
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.