ArticlePloS one2025
An open-source interactive AI framework for assisting automatic literature review in forensic medicine: Focus on brain injury mechanisms.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Migration patterns of uncemented femoral stems in hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical radiostereometric analysis cohort studies.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Resources for the Screening of Titles and Abstracts in Systematic Reviews: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Evaluating AI Performance in Systematic Literature Reviews for HEOR: A Case Study.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveSystematic reviews and meta-analyses are critical in forensic medicine; however, these processes are labor-intensive and time-consuming. ASReview, an open-source machine learning framework, has demonstrated potential to improve the efficiency and transparency of systematic reviews in other disciplines. Nevertheless, its applicability to forensic medicine remains unexplored. This study evaluates the utility of ASReview for forensic medical literature review.
methodsA three-stage experimental design was implemented. First, stratified five-fold cross-validation was conducted to assess ASReview's compatibility with forensic medical literature. Second, incremental learning and sampling methods were employed to analyze the model's performance on imbalanced datasets and the effect of training set size on predictive accuracy. Third, gold standard were translated into computational languages to evaluate ASReview's capacity to address real-world systematic review objectives.
resultsASReview exhibited robust viability for screening forensic medical literature. The tool efficiently prioritized relevant studies while excluding irrelevant records, thereby improving review productivity. Model performance remained stable when labeled training data constituted less than 80% of the total sample size. Notably, when the training set proportion ranged from 10% to 55%, ASReview's predictions aligned closely with human reviewer decisions.
conclusionASReview represents a promising tool for forensic medical literature review. Its ability to handle imbalanced datasets and gather goal-oriented information enhances the efficiency and transparency of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in forensic medicine. Further research is required to optimize implementation strategies and validate its utility across diverse forensic medical contexts.
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.