Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39312500›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2024

Boosting efficiency in a clinical literature surveillance system with LightGBM.

Cynthia Lokker, Wael Abdelkader, Elham Bagheri, Rick Parrish, Chris Cotoi, Tamara Navarro, Federico Germini, Lori-Ann Linkins, R Brian Haynes, Lingyang Chu and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

12 authors.

Cynthia LokkerHealth Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2436-4290
Wael AbdelkaderHealth Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Elham BagheriHealth Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Rick ParrishHealth Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Chris CotoiHealth Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Tamara NavarroHealth Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Federico GerminiHealth Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0802-3616
Lori-Ann LinkinsDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
R Brian HaynesHealth Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Lingyang ChuDepartment of Computing and Software, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Muhammad AfzalSchool of Computing and Digital Technology, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Alfonso IorioHealth Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID39312500
PMCPMC11419392

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.