MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801170057 · doi:10.2196/10281

A Deep Learning Method to Automatically Identify Reports of Scientifically Rigorous Clinical Research from the Biomedical Literature: Comparative Analytic Study

2018· article· en· W2801170057 on OpenAlexafffund
Guilherme Del Fiol, Matthew Michelson, Alfonso Iorio, Chris Cotoi, R. Brian Haynes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesAdvanced Research Projects AgencyNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency
KeywordsComputer scienceData scienceArtificial intelligenceManagement scienceInformation retrievalEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A major barrier to the practice of evidence-based medicine is efficiently finding scientifically sound studies on a given clinical topic. OBJECTIVE: To investigate a deep learning approach to retrieve scientifically sound treatment studies from the biomedical literature. METHODS: We trained a Convolutional Neural Network using a noisy dataset of 403,216 PubMed citations with title and abstract as features. The deep learning model was compared with state-of-the-art search filters, such as PubMed's Clinical Query Broad treatment filter, McMaster's textword search strategy (no Medical Subject Heading, MeSH, terms), and Clinical Query Balanced treatment filter. A previously annotated dataset (Clinical Hedges) was used as the gold standard. RESULTS: The deep learning model obtained significantly lower recall than the Clinical Queries Broad treatment filter (96.9% vs 98.4%; P<.001); and equivalent recall to McMaster's textword search (96.9% vs 97.1%; P=.57) and Clinical Queries Balanced filter (96.9% vs 97.0%; P=.63). Deep learning obtained significantly higher precision than the Clinical Queries Broad filter (34.6% vs 22.4%; P<.001) and McMaster's textword search (34.6% vs 11.8%; P<.001), but was significantly lower than the Clinical Queries Balanced filter (34.6% vs 40.9%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Deep learning performed well compared to state-of-the-art search filters, especially when citations were not indexed. Unlike previous machine learning approaches, the proposed deep learning model does not require feature engineering, or time-sensitive or proprietary features, such as MeSH terms and bibliometrics. Deep learning is a promising approach to identifying reports of scientifically rigorous clinical research. Further work is needed to optimize the deep learning model and to assess generalizability to other areas, such as diagnosis, etiology, and prognosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207