Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40748904›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

An open-source interactive AI framework for assisting automatic literature review in forensic medicine: Focus on brain injury mechanisms.

Ya-Wen Liu, Dong-Hua Zou, He-Wen Dong, Yuan-Yuan Liu, En-Hao Fu, Zhi-Ling Tian, Ning-Guo Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Evaluating AI Performance in Systematic Literature Reviews for HEOR: A Case Study.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026
    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

7 authors.

Ya-Wen LiuAcademy of Forensic Science, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensics Medicine, Shanghai Forensic Service Platform, Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Dong-Hua ZouAcademy of Forensic Science, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensics Medicine, Shanghai Forensic Service Platform, Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
He-Wen DongAcademy of Forensic Science, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensics Medicine, Shanghai Forensic Service Platform, Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Yuan-Yuan LiuAcademy of Forensic Science, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensics Medicine, Shanghai Forensic Service Platform, Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
En-Hao FuAcademy of Forensic Science, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensics Medicine, Shanghai Forensic Service Platform, Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Zhi-Ling TianAcademy of Forensic Science, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensics Medicine, Shanghai Forensic Service Platform, Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Ning-Guo LiuAcademy of Forensic Science, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensics Medicine, Shanghai Forensic Service Platform, Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2025-3254

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Brain InjuriesForensic MedicineMachine LearningHumans

Identifiers

PMID40748904
PMCPMC12316232

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.