MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Performance and Usability of Machine Learning for Screening in Systematic Reviews: A Comparative Evaluation of Three Tools

2019· report· en· W4234842191 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Allison Gates, Samantha Guitard, Jennifer Pillay, Sarah A. Elliott, Michele P. Dyson, Amanda S. Newton, Lisa Hartling

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of AlbertaAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsUsabilityComputer scienceUsability inspectionHuman–computer interactionUsability engineeringArtificial intelligenceData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose of Project For title and abstract screening, we explored the reliability of three machine learning tools when used to automatically eliminate irrelevant records or complement the work of a single reviewer. We evaluated the usability of each tool.

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)0.506
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.803
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5060.803
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.024
Bibliometrics0.0310.023
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0050.004
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 head0.930
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.326 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→