Improving Systematic Review Updates With Natural Language Processing Through Abstract Component Classification and Selection: Algorithm Development and Validation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: A challenge in updating systematic reviews is the workload in screening the articles. Many screening models using natural language processing technology have been implemented to scrutinize articles based on titles and abstracts. While these approaches show promise, traditional models typically treat abstracts as uniform text. We hypothesize that selective training on specific abstract components could enhance model performance for systematic review screening. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy of a novel screening model that selects specific components from abstracts to improve performance and developed an automatic systematic review update model using an abstract component classifier to categorize abstracts based on their components. METHODS: A screening model was created based on the included and excluded articles in the existing systematic review and used as the scheme for the automatic update of the systematic review. A prior publication was selected for the systematic review, and articles included or excluded in the articles screening process were used as training data. The titles and abstracts were classified into 5 categories (Title, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusion). Thirty-one component-composition datasets were created by combining 5 component datasets. We implemented 31 screening models using the component-composition datasets and compared their performances. Comparisons were conducted using 3 pretrained models: Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformer (BERT), BioLinkBERT, and BioM- Efficiently Learning an Encoder that Classifies Token Replacements Accurately (ELECTRA). Moreover, to automate the component selection of abstracts, we developed the Abstract Component Classifier Model and created component datasets using this classifier model classification. Using the component datasets classified using the Abstract Component Classifier Model, we created 10 component-composition datasets used by the top 10 screening models with the highest performance when implementing screening models using the component datasets that were classified manually. Ten screening models were implemented using these datasets, and their performances were compared with those of models developed using manually classified component-composition datasets. The primary evaluation metric was the F10-Score weighted by the recall. RESULTS: A total of 256 included articles and 1261 excluded articles were extracted from the selected systematic review. In the screening models implemented using manually classified datasets, the performance of some surpassed that of models trained on all components (BERT: 9 models, BioLinkBERT: 6 models, and BioM-ELECTRA: 21 models). In models implemented using datasets classified by the Abstract Component Classifier Model, the performances of some models (BERT: 7 models and BioM-ELECTRA: 9 models) surpassed that of the models trained on all components. These models achieved an 88.6% reduction in manual screening workload while maintaining high recall (0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Component selection from the title and abstract can improve the performance of screening models and substantially reduce the manual screening workload in systematic review updates. Future research should focus on validating this approach across different systematic review domains.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,054 | 0,183 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».