High-performance information search filters for acute kidney injury content in PubMed, Ovid Medline and Embase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We frequently fail to identify articles relevant to the subject of acute kidney injury (AKI) when searching the large bibliographic databases such as PubMed, Ovid Medline or Embase. To address this issue, we used computer automation to create information search filters to better identify articles relevant to AKI in these databases. METHODS: We first manually reviewed a sample of 22 992 full-text articles and used prespecified criteria to determine whether each article contained AKI content or not. In the development phase (two-thirds of the sample), we developed and tested the performance of >1.3-million unique filters. Filters with high sensitivity and high specificity for the identification of AKI articles were then retested in the validation phase (remaining third of the sample). RESULTS: We succeeded in developing and validating high-performance AKI search filters for each bibliographic database with sensitivities and specificities in excess of 90%. Filters optimized for sensitivity reached at least 97.2% sensitivity, and filters optimized for specificity reached at least 99.5% specificity. The filters were complex; for example one PubMed filter included >140 terms used in combination, including 'acute kidney injury', 'tubular necrosis', 'azotemia' and 'ischemic injury'. In proof-of-concept searches, physicians found more articles relevant to topics in AKI with the use of the filters. CONCLUSIONS: PubMed, Ovid Medline and Embase can be filtered for articles relevant to AKI in a reliable manner. These high-performance information filters are now available online and can be used to better identify AKI content in large bibliographic databases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.103 | 0.378 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.087 | 0.045 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".