MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407624627 · doi:10.2196/65371

Improving Systematic Review Updates With Natural Language Processing Through Abstract Component Classification and Selection: Algorithm Development and Validation

2025· article· en· W4407624627 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tatsuki Hasegawa, Hayato Kizaki, Keisho Ikegami, Shungo Imai, Yuki Yanagisawa, Shuntaro Yada, Eiji Aramaki, Satoko Hori

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintComponent (thermodynamics)Computer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Data miningArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingData scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A challenge in updating systematic reviews is the workload in screening the articles. Many screening models using natural language processing technology have been implemented to scrutinize articles based on titles and abstracts. While these approaches show promise, traditional models typically treat abstracts as uniform text. We hypothesize that selective training on specific abstract components could enhance model performance for systematic review screening. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy of a novel screening model that selects specific components from abstracts to improve performance and developed an automatic systematic review update model using an abstract component classifier to categorize abstracts based on their components. METHODS: A screening model was created based on the included and excluded articles in the existing systematic review and used as the scheme for the automatic update of the systematic review. A prior publication was selected for the systematic review, and articles included or excluded in the articles screening process were used as training data. The titles and abstracts were classified into 5 categories (Title, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusion). Thirty-one component-composition datasets were created by combining 5 component datasets. We implemented 31 screening models using the component-composition datasets and compared their performances. Comparisons were conducted using 3 pretrained models: Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformer (BERT), BioLinkBERT, and BioM- Efficiently Learning an Encoder that Classifies Token Replacements Accurately (ELECTRA). Moreover, to automate the component selection of abstracts, we developed the Abstract Component Classifier Model and created component datasets using this classifier model classification. Using the component datasets classified using the Abstract Component Classifier Model, we created 10 component-composition datasets used by the top 10 screening models with the highest performance when implementing screening models using the component datasets that were classified manually. Ten screening models were implemented using these datasets, and their performances were compared with those of models developed using manually classified component-composition datasets. The primary evaluation metric was the F10-Score weighted by the recall. RESULTS: A total of 256 included articles and 1261 excluded articles were extracted from the selected systematic review. In the screening models implemented using manually classified datasets, the performance of some surpassed that of models trained on all components (BERT: 9 models, BioLinkBERT: 6 models, and BioM-ELECTRA: 21 models). In models implemented using datasets classified by the Abstract Component Classifier Model, the performances of some models (BERT: 7 models and BioM-ELECTRA: 9 models) surpassed that of the models trained on all components. These models achieved an 88.6% reduction in manual screening workload while maintaining high recall (0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Component selection from the title and abstract can improve the performance of screening models and substantially reduce the manual screening workload in systematic review updates. Future research should focus on validating this approach across different systematic review domains.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.183
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.183
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207