An automated method for developing search strategies for systematic review using Natural Language Processing (NLP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design and implementation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often hampered by high financial costs, significant time commitment, and biases due to researchers' familiarity with studies. We proposed and implemented a fast and standardized method for search term selection using Natural Language Processing (NLP) and co-occurrence networks to identify relevant search terms to reduce biases in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. •The method was implemented using Python packaged dubbed Ananse, which is benchmarked on the search terms strategy for naïve search proposed by Grames et al. (2019) written in "R". Ananse was applied to a case example towards finding search terms to implement a systematic literature review on cumulative effect studies on forest ecosystems. •The software automatically corrected and classified 100% of the duplicate articles identified by manual deduplication. Ananse was applied to the cumulative effects assessment case study, but it can serve as a general-purpose, open-source software system that can support extensive systematic reviews within a relatively short period with reduced biases. •Besides generating keywords, Ananse can act as middleware or a data converter for integrating multiple datasets into a database.
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 | 0.061 | 0.172 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.015 |
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".