Machine Learning Approaches to Retrieve High-Quality, Clinically Relevant Evidence From the Biomedical Literature: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rapid growth of the biomedical literature makes identifying strong evidence a time-consuming task. Applying machine learning to the process could be a viable solution that limits effort while maintaining accuracy. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the research was to summarize the nature and comparative performance of machine learning approaches that have been applied to retrieve high-quality evidence for clinical consideration from the biomedical literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies that applied machine learning techniques to identify high-quality clinical articles in the biomedical literature. Multiple databases were searched to July 2020. Extracted data focused on the applied machine learning model, steps in the development of the models, and model performance. RESULTS: From 3918 retrieved studies, 10 met our inclusion criteria. All followed a supervised machine learning approach and applied, from a limited range of options, a high-quality standard for the training of their model. The results show that machine learning can achieve a sensitivity of 95% while maintaining a high precision of 86%. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning approaches perform well in retrieving high-quality clinical studies. Performance may improve by applying more sophisticated approaches such as active learning and unsupervised machine learning approaches.
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 | 0.119 | 0.389 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".