A pilot validation study of crowdsourcing systematic reviews: update of a searchable database of pediatric clinical trials of high-dose vitamin D
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Completing large systematic reviews and maintaining them up to date poses significant challenges. This is mainly due to the toll required of a small group of experts to screen and extract potentially eligible citations. Automated approaches have failed so far in providing an accessible and adaptable tool to the research community. Over the past decade, crowdsourcing has become attractive in the scientific field, and implementing it in citation screening could save the investigative team significant work and decrease the time to publication. METHODS: Citations from the 2015 update of a pediatrics vitamin D systematic review were uploaded to an online platform designed for crowdsourcing the screening process (http://www.CHEORI.org/en/CrowdScreenOverview). Three sets of exclusion criteria were used for screening, with a review of abstracts at level one, and full-text eligibility determined through two screening stages. Two trained reviewers, who participated in the initial systematic review, established citation eligibility. In parallel, each citation received four independent assessments from an untrained crowd with a medical background. Citations were retained or excluded if they received three congruent assessments. Otherwise, they were reviewed by the principal investigator. Measured outcomes included sensitivity of the crowd to retain eligible studies, and potential work saved defined as citations sorted by the crowd (excluded or retained) without involvement of the principal investigator. RESULTS: A total of 148 citations for screening were identified, of which 20 met eligibility criteria (true positives). The four reviewers from the crowd agreed completely on 63% (95% CI: 57-69%) of assessments, and achieved a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 88-100%) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI: 96-100%). Potential work saved to the research team was 84% (95% CI: 77-89%) at the abstract screening stage, and 73% (95% CI: 67-79%) through all three levels. In addition, different thresholds for citation retention and exclusion were assessed. With an algorithm favoring sensitivity (citation excluded only if all four reviewers agree), sensitivity was maintained at 100%, with a decrease of potential work saved to 66% (95% CI: 59-71%). In contrast, increasing the threshold required for retention (exclude all citations not obtaining 3/4 retain assessments) decreased sensitivity to 85% (95% CI: 65-96%), while improving potential workload saved to 92% (95% CI: 88-95%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the accuracy of crowdsourcing for systematic review citations screening, with retention of all eligible articles and a significant reduction in the work required from the investigative team. Together, these two findings suggest that crowdsourcing could represent a significant advancement in the area of systematic review. Future directions include further study to assess validity across medical fields and determination of the capacity of a non-medical crowd.
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 | 0.247 | 0.577 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".