ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Semi-automated title-abstract screening using natural language processing and machine learning.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-Recall Biomedical Language Models for Radiation Oncology Evidence Synthesis: An Integrated Systematic Review of Prediction Models for Radiotherapy-Induced Complications in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Techniques, Performance, and Feasibility of Natural Language Processing for Abstract Screening in Evidence Synthesis: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence Resources for the Screening of Titles and Abstracts in Systematic Reviews: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- To include or not to include? A prescription from the pharmacy on how to use active learning-assisted screening in systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTitle-abstract screening in the preparation of a systematic review is a time-consuming task. Modern techniques of natural language processing and machine learning might allow partly automatization of title-abstract screening. In particular, clear guidance on how to proceed with these techniques in practice is of high relevance.
methodsThis paper presents an entire pipeline how to use natural language processing techniques to make the titles and abstracts usable for machine learning and how to apply machine learning algorithms to adequately predict whether or not a publication should be forwarded to full text screening. Guidance for the practical use of the methodology is given.
resultsThe appealing performance of the approach is demonstrated by means of two real-world systematic reviews with meta analysis.
conclusionsNatural language processing and machine learning can help to semi-automatize title-abstract screening. Different project-specific considerations have to be made for applying them in practice.
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.