Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41721428›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2026

Machine learning-assisted abstract screening on learning analytics: a step-by-step tutorial.

Zhihong Xu, Shuai Ma, Xiting Zhuang, Anjorin Ezekiel Adeyemi, Ashlynn Kogut

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

5 authors.

Zhihong XuDepartment of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA. xuzhihong@tamu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4769-5597
Shuai MaDepartment of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA.
Xiting ZhuangNorth Dakota State University, Fargo, USA.
Anjorin Ezekiel AdeyemiDepartment of Agriculture, Fort Hays State University, Hays, United States.
Ashlynn KogutDepartment of Teaching, Learning and Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA.

Funding

Cross-Border Threat Screening and Supply Chain Defense 18STCBT00001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews are crucial for synthesizing evidence, but their manual processes, particularly abstract screening, are labor-intensive and prone to error. Advances in machine learning (ML) offer solutions to enhance efficiency and accuracy. Using a learning analytics (LA) in higher education review as a case study, this tutorial provides a step-by-step guide to implementing two ML solutions to streamline abstract screening. One solution is ASReview, an active learning-based ML framework. We detailed data preparation, ASReview setup, and its active learning capabilities, which significantly reduce manual workloads while maintaining high recall rates. The second solution is ChatGPT, a GPT-4 powered large language model (LLM), to demonstrate optimizing prompts and parameters in Python's Google Colab environment for accurate and consistent screening results. We present performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, to evaluate each tool's strengths and limitations. ASReview excels in handling large datasets, while ChatGPT enhances screening precision with well-designed prompts. This tutorial empowers researchers to integrate ML into systematic reviews, ensuring rigor, transparency, and efficiency while addressing the growing complexity of evidence synthesis.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSystematic Reviews as TopicData AnalyticsGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language ModelsAbstract screeningMachine learningSystematic reviewTutorial

Identifiers

PMID41721428
PMCPMC13032669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.