ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2025
Machine Learning-Assisted Health Economics and Policy Reviews: A Comparative Assessment.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Measurement of Adherence to Patient-Facing Digital Health Applications: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- 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
- Non-Invasive Remote Monitoring in Heart Failure: Towards Wearable Devices and Artificial Intelligence Solutions : Short Title: Remote Monitoring and Wearable Devices in Heart Failure.Current heart failure reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe growth of scientific literature in health economics and policy represents a challenge for researchers conducting literature reviews. This study explores the adoption of a machine learning (ML) tool to enhance title and abstract screening. By retrospectively assessing its performance against the manual screening of a recent scoping review, we aimed to evaluate its reliability and potential for streamlining future reviews.
methodsASReview was utilised in 'Simulation Mode' to evaluate the percentage of relevant records found (RRF) during title/abstract screening. A dataset of 10,246 unique records from three databases was considered, with 135 relevant records labelled. Performance was assessed across three scenarios with varying levels of prior knowledge (PK) (i.e., 5, 10, or 15 records), using both sampling and heuristic stopping criteria, with 100 simulations conducted for each scenario.
resultsThe ML tool demonstrated strong performance in facilitating the screening process. Using the sampling criterion, median RRF values stabilised at 97% with 25% of the sample screened, saving reviewers approximately 32 working days. The heuristic criterion showed similar median values, but greater variability due to premature conclusions upon reaching the threshold. While higher PK levels improved early-stage performance, the ML tool's accuracy stabilised as screening progressed, even with minimal PK.
conclusionsThis study highlights the potential of ML tools to enhance the efficiency of title and abstract screening in health economics and policy literature reviews. To fully realise this potential, it is essential for regulatory bodies to establish comprehensive guidelines that ensure ML-assisted reviews uphold rigorous evidence quality standards, thereby enhancing their integrity and reliability.
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.