Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40729661›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Leveraging AI to Optimize Maintenance of Health Evidence and Offer a One-Stop Shop for Quality-Appraised Evidence Syntheses on the Effectiveness of Public Health Interventions: Quality Improvement Project.

Kristin Rogers, Alanna Miller, Ashley Girgis, Emily C Clark, Sarah E Neil-Sztramko, Maureen Dobbins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Kristin RogersNational Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, School of Nursing, McMaster University, 175 Longwood Road South, Suite 210A, Hamilton, ON, L8P0A1, Canada, 1 9055259140 ext 20450.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5901-244X
Alanna MillerNational Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, School of Nursing, McMaster University, 175 Longwood Road South, Suite 210A, Hamilton, ON, L8P0A1, Canada, 1 9055259140 ext 20450.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5443-1581
Ashley GirgisNational Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, School of Nursing, McMaster University, 175 Longwood Road South, Suite 210A, Hamilton, ON, L8P0A1, Canada, 1 9055259140 ext 20450.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-2407-8615
Emily C ClarkNational Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, School of Nursing, McMaster University, 175 Longwood Road South, Suite 210A, Hamilton, ON, L8P0A1, Canada, 1 9055259140 ext 20450.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6615-944X
Sarah E Neil-SztramkoNational Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, School of Nursing, McMaster University, 175 Longwood Road South, Suite 210A, Hamilton, ON, L8P0A1, Canada, 1 9055259140 ext 20450.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9600-3403
Maureen DobbinsNational Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, School of Nursing, McMaster University, 175 Longwood Road South, Suite 210A, Hamilton, ON, L8P0A1, Canada, 1 9055259140 ext 20450.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1968-6765

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Health Evidence provides access to quality appraisals for >10,000 evidence syntheses on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of public health and health promotion interventions. Maintaining Health Evidence has become increasingly resource-intensive due to the exponential growth of published literature. Innovative screening methods using artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially improve efficiency. Objective: The objectives of this project are to: (1) assess the ability of AI-assisted screening to correctly predict nonrelevant references at the title and abstract level and investigate the consistency of this performance over time, and (2) evaluate the impact of AI-assisted screening on the overall monthly manual screening set. Methods: Training and testing were conducted using the DistillerSR AI Preview & Rank feature. A set of manually screened references (n=43,273) was uploaded and used to train the AI feature and assign probability scores to each reference to predict relevance. A minimum threshold was established where the AI feature correctly identified all manually screened relevant references. The AI feature was tested on a separate set of references (n=72,686) from the May 2019 to April 2020 monthly searches. The testing set was used to determine an optimal threshold that ensured >99% of relevant references would continue to be added to Health Evidence. The performance of AI-assisted screening at the title and abstract screening level was evaluated using recall, specificity, precision, negative predictive value, and the number of references removed by AI. The number and percentage of references removed by AI-assisted screening and the change in monthly manual screening time were estimated using an implementation reference set (n=272,253) from November 2020 to 2023. Results: The minimum threshold in the training set of references was 0.068, which correctly removed 37% (n=16,122) of nonrelevant references. Analysis of the testing set identified an optimal threshold of 0.17, which removed 51,706 (71.14%) references using AI-assisted screening. A slight decrease in recall between the 0.068 minimum threshold (99.68%) and the 0.17 optimal threshold (94.84%) was noted, resulting in four missed references included via manual screening at the full-text level. This was accompanied by an increase in specificity from 35.95% to 71.70%, doubling the proportion of references AI-assisted screening correctly predicted as not relevant. Over 3 years of implementation, the number of references requiring manual screening was reduced by 70%, reducing the time spent manually screening by an estimated 382 hours. Conclusions: Given the magnitude of newly published peer-reviewed evidence, the curation of evidence supports decision makers in making informed decisions. AI-assisted screening can be an important tool to supplement manual screening and reduce the number of references that require manual screening, ensuring that the continued availability of curated high-quality synthesis evidence in public health is possible.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEvidence-Based MedicinePublic HealthQuality ImprovementHumansautomationcitation screeningdatabase managementmachine learningmethodologynatural language processingsystematic reviewtext classificationtitle and abstract screening

Identifiers

PMID40729661
PMCPMC12306910

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.