MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389512251 · doi:10.1016/j.canep.2023.102511

Evaluating the efficacy of artificial intelligence tools for the automation of systematic reviews in cancer research: A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4389512251 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaomei Yao, Mithilesh V. Kumar, Esther Su, A.F. de Miranda, Ashirbani Saha, Jonathan Sussman

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityImpactMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWorkloadCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewMEDLINEAutomationArtificial intelligenceMedical physicsComputer scienceMeta-analysisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.355
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.355
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.025
Bibliometrics0.0180.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.954
GPT teacher head0.733
Teacher spread0.221 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCancer EpidemiologySame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207