Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40146984›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025

Improving Systematic Review Updates With Natural Language Processing Through Abstract Component Classification and Selection: Algorithm Development and Validation.

Tatsuki Hasegawa, Hayato Kizaki, Keisho Ikegami, Shungo Imai, Yuki Yanagisawa, Shuntaro Yada, Eiji Aramaki, Satoko Hori

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Tatsuki HasegawaDivision of Drug Informatics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0009-0008-4708-3460
Hayato KizakiDivision of Drug Informatics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4572-1333
Keisho IkegamiDivision of Drug Informatics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0009-0005-5025-3078
Shungo ImaiDivision of Drug Informatics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-5706-613X
Yuki YanagisawaDivision of Drug Informatics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-6998-6654
Shuntaro YadaNara Institute of Science and Technology, Nara, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-6209-1054
Eiji AramakiNara Institute of Science and Technology, Nara, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-0201-3609
Satoko HoriDivision of Drug Informatics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4596-5418

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA challenge in updating systematic reviews is the workload in screening the articles. Many screening models using natural language processing technology have been implemented to scrutinize articles based on titles and abstracts. While these approaches show promise, traditional models typically treat abstracts as uniform text. We hypothesize that selective training on specific abstract components could enhance model performance for systematic review screening.

objectiveWe evaluated the efficacy of a novel screening model that selects specific components from abstracts to improve performance and developed an automatic systematic review update model using an abstract component classifier to categorize abstracts based on their components.

methodsA screening model was created based on the included and excluded articles in the existing systematic review and used as the scheme for the automatic update of the systematic review. A prior publication was selected for the systematic review, and articles included or excluded in the articles screening process were used as training data. The titles and abstracts were classified into 5 categories (Title, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusion). Thirty-one component-composition datasets were created by combining 5 component datasets. We implemented 31 screening models using the component-composition datasets and compared their performances. Comparisons were conducted using 3 pretrained models: Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformer (BERT), BioLinkBERT, and BioM- Efficiently Learning an Encoder that Classifies Token Replacements Accurately (ELECTRA). Moreover, to automate the component selection of abstracts, we developed the Abstract Component Classifier Model and created component datasets using this classifier model classification. Using the component datasets classified using the Abstract Component Classifier Model, we created 10 component-composition datasets used by the top 10 screening models with the highest performance when implementing screening models using the component datasets that were classified manually. Ten screening models were implemented using these datasets, and their performances were compared with those of models developed using manually classified component-composition datasets. The primary evaluation metric was the F10-Score weighted by the recall.

resultsA total of 256 included articles and 1261 excluded articles were extracted from the selected systematic review. In the screening models implemented using manually classified datasets, the performance of some surpassed that of models trained on all components (BERT: 9 models, BioLinkBERT: 6 models, and BioM-ELECTRA: 21 models). In models implemented using datasets classified by the Abstract Component Classifier Model, the performances of some models (BERT: 7 models and BioM-ELECTRA: 9 models) surpassed that of the models trained on all components. These models achieved an 88.6% reduction in manual screening workload while maintaining high recall (0.93).

conclusionsComponent selection from the title and abstract can improve the performance of screening models and substantially reduce the manual screening workload in systematic review updates. Future research should focus on validating this approach across different systematic review domains.

Indexed as

Abstracting and IndexingNatural Language ProcessingSystematic Reviews as TopicAlgorithmsbidirectional encoder representations from transformerefficiencyguideline updateslanguage modelliteraturenatural language processingscreening modelsystematic reviewupdating systematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID40146984
PMCPMC11986382

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.