ArticleCancer innovation2025
A Study Protocol for a Comprehensive Evaluation of Two Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Title and Abstract Screening for the Development of Evidence-Based Cancer Guidelines.
Article in Cancer innovation, 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.
- Evaluating the Performance of Covidence's Artificial Intelligence-Based Screening Function in Cancer Systematic Reviews.Cancer innovation · 2026Article
- Could artificial intelligence-powered colonoscopies change the future of colorectal cancer screening?World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Comparative effectiveness of low-dose CT lung cancer screening among high-risk non-smoking female subgroups and males in China.Frontiers in oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conducting a systematic review (SR) is a time-intensive process and represents the first phase in developing a clinical practice guideline (CPG). Completing a CPG through the Program in Evidence-Based Care (PEBC), a globally acknowledged guideline program supported by Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), typically takes about 2 years. Thus, expediting an SR can significantly reduce the overall time required to complete a CPG. Our recently published review identified two artificial intelligence (AI) tools, DistillerSR and EPPI-Reviewer that reduced time in the title and abstract screening in an SR process when developing a CPG. However, the consistency and generalizability of these tools remain unclear within or across different SRs related to cancer. This study protocol aims to evaluate and compare the performance of DistillerSR and EPPI-Reviewer against human reviewers for title and abstract screening (Stage I screening) in cancer CPG development. Methods: We will conduct a retrospective simulation study to evaluate and compare the performance of DistillerSR and EPPI-Reviewer across 10 previously published CPGs by PEBC. These CPGs include the five cancer types with the highest incidence (lung, breast, prostate, colorectal, and bladder). We will run 30 simulation trials for one CPG per AI tool. Primary outcomes are workload savings and time savings in Stage I screening. The secondary outcome is the percentage of missing articles among the final included articles. This informs the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the AI tools. Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis will be conducted to evaluate the outcomes. Results: This is a study protocol. The data presented in the tables are illustrative examples rather than actual study results, in accordance with the journal s standard structure. All data included in the final study will be thoroughly validated. Discussion: This will be the first study to investigate and compare the performance of DistillerSR and EPPI-Reviewer in Stage I screening of SRs in CPGs across different cancer types. These findings will inform the reliable use of AI tools in future cancer-related CPGs. The results from this retrospective study will need to be confirmed by prospective studies.
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.