Evaluation of an automatic article selection method for timelier updates of the Comet Core Outcome Set database

Abstract Curated databases of scientific literature play an important role in helping researchers find relevant literature, but populating such databases is a labour intensive and time-consuming process. One such database is the freely accessible Comet Core Outcome Set database, which was originally populated using manual screening in an annually updated systematic review. In order to reduce the workload and facilitate more timely updates we are evaluating machine learning methods to reduce the number of references needed to screen. In this study we have evaluated a machine learning approach based on logistic regression to automatically rank the candidate articles. Data from the original systematic review and its four first review updates were used to train the model and evaluate performance. We estimated that using automatic screening would yield a workload reduction of at least 75% while keeping the number of missed references around 2%. We judged this to be an acceptable trade-off for this systematic review, and the method is now being used for the next round of the Comet database update.

[1]  Elizabeth Gargon,et al.  Collating the knowledge base for core outcome set development: developing and appraising the search strategy for a systematic review , 2015, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[2]  Carla E. Brodley,et al.  Deploying an interactive machine learning system in an evidence-based practice center: abstrackr , 2012, IHI '12.

[3]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[4]  Pierre Zweigenbaum,et al.  Automating Document Discovery in the Systematic Review Process: How to Use Chaff to Extract Wheat , 2018, LREC.

[5]  Gabriella Pasi,et al.  Overview of the CLEF eHealth Evaluation Lab 2020 , 2020, CLEF.

[6]  Guido Zuccon,et al.  Overview of the CLEF eHealth Evaluation Lab 2018 , 2018, CLEF.

[7]  Zhiyong Lu,et al.  Benchmarking of the 2010 BioCreative Challenge III text-mining competition by the BioGRID and MINT interaction databases , 2011 .

[8]  Mourad Ouzzani,et al.  Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) , 2018, Systematic Reviews.

[9]  Sophia Ananiadou,et al.  Prioritising references for systematic reviews with RobotAnalyst: A user study , 2018, Research synthesis methods.

[10]  Judith A. Blake,et al.  Integrating text mining into the MGI biocuration workflow , 2009, Database J. Biol. Databases Curation.

[11]  Christopher J. C. Burges,et al.  From RankNet to LambdaRank to LambdaMART: An Overview , 2010 .

[12]  S. Ananiadou,et al.  Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[13]  Paula R. Williamson,et al.  Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps , 2016, PloS one.

[14]  Paula R. Williamson,et al.  Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review , 2014, PloS one.

[15]  Elizabeth Gargon,et al.  Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research , 2018, PloS one.

[16]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries , 2018, PloS one.

[17]  Jing Liao,et al.  Machine learning algorithms for systematic review: reducing workload in a preclinical review of animal studies and reducing human screening error , 2019, Systematic Reviews.

[18]  Norbert Fuhr,et al.  Probabilistic Models in Information Retrieval , 1992, Comput. J..

[19]  Brian E. Howard,et al.  SWIFT-Review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[20]  Leif Azzopardi,et al.  CLEF 2018 Technologically Assisted Reviews in Empirical Medicine Overview , 2018, CLEF.

[21]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  A critical analysis of studies that address the use of text mining for citation screening in systematic reviews , 2016, EASE.

[22]  Angus G K McNair,et al.  The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 , 2017, Trials.

[23]  Ahmed K. Elmagarmid,et al.  Learning to identify relevant studies for systematic reviews using random forest and external information , 2015, Machine Learning.

[24]  P. Glasziou,et al.  Systematic review automation technologies , 2014, Systematic Reviews.

[25]  Philippe Ravaud,et al.  Automatic screening using word embeddings achieved high sensitivity and workload reduction for updating living network meta-analyses. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[26]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey , 2016, PloS one.

[27]  William R. Hersh,et al.  Feature Generation, Feature Selection, Classifiers, and Conceptual Drift for Biomedical Document Triage , 2004, TREC.