Machine learning for identifying Randomized Controlled Trials: An evaluation and practitioner's guide
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame — the usual design — would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) algorithms have proven highly accurate for identifying Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) but are not used much in practice, in part because the best way to make use of the technology in a typical workflow is unclear. In this work, we evaluate ML models for RCT classification (support vector machines, convolutional neural networks, and ensemble approaches). We trained and optimized support vector machine and convolutional neural network models on the titles and abstracts of the Cochrane Crowd RCT set. We evaluated the models on an external dataset (Clinical Hedges), allowing direct comparison with traditional database search filters. We estimated area under receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) using the Clinical Hedges dataset. We demonstrate that ML approaches better discriminate between RCTs and non-RCTs than widely used traditional database search filters at all sensitivity levels; our best-performing model also achieved the best results to date for ML in this task (AUROC 0.987, 95% CI, 0.984-0.989). We provide practical guidance on the role of ML in (1) systematic reviews (high-sensitivity strategies) and (2) rapid reviews and clinical question answering (high-precision strategies) together with recommended probability cutoffs for each use case. Finally, we provide open-source software to enable these approaches to be used in practice.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Research Synthesis Methods
- Topic
- Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Field
- Computer Science
- Canadian institutions
- —
- Funders
- U.S. National Library of MedicineAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteMedical Research CouncilMcMaster University
- Keywords
- Computer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceRandomized controlled trialWorkflowConvolutional neural networkSupport vector machineSystematic reviewSensitivity (control systems)Data miningMEDLINEMedicineDatabase
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes