An automated method for developing search strategies for systematic review using Natural Language Processing (NLP)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it