Automation of Article Selection Process in Systematic Reviews Through Artificial Neural Network Modeling and Machine Learning: Protocol for an Article Selection Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A systematic review can be defined as a summary of the evidence found in the literature via a systematic search in the available scientific databases. One of the steps involved is article selection, which is typically a laborious task. Machine learning and artificial intelligence can be important tools in automating this step, thus aiding researchers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to create models based on an artificial neural network system to automate the article selection process in systematic reviews related to "Mindfulness and Health Promotion." METHODS: The study will be performed using Python programming software. The system will consist of six main steps: (1) data import, (2) exclusion of duplicates, (3) exclusion of non-articles, (4) article reading and model creation using artificial neural network, (5) comparison of the models, and (6) system sharing. We will choose the 10 most relevant systematic reviews published in the fields of "Mindfulness and Health Promotion" and "Orthopedics" (control group) to serve as a test of the effectiveness of the article selection. RESULTS: Data collection will begin in July 2021, with completion scheduled for December 2021, and final publication available in March 2022. CONCLUSIONS: An automated system with a modifiable sensitivity will be created to select scientific articles in systematic review that can be expanded to various fields. We will disseminate our results and models through the "Observatory of Evidence" in public health, an open and online platform that will assist researchers in systematic reviews. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/26448.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | high |
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 | 0.173 | 0.288 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.108 | 0.027 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".