ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Machine learning-assisted abstract screening on learning analytics: a step-by-step tutorial.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Resources for the Screening of Titles and Abstracts in Systematic Reviews: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
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
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
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.