A practical guide to evaluating sensitivity of literature search strings for systematic reviews using relative recall
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
Systematic searches of published literature are a vital component of systematic reviews. When search strings are not "sensitive," they may miss many relevant studies limiting, or even biasing, the range of evidence available for synthesis. Concerningly, conducting and reporting evaluations (validations) of the sensitivity of the used search strings is rare, according to our survey of published systematic reviews and protocols. Potential reasons may involve a lack of familiarity or inaccessibility of complex sensitivity evaluation approaches. We first clarify the main concepts and principles of search string evaluation. We then present a simple procedure for estimating a relative recall of a search string. It is based on a pre-defined set of "benchmark" publications. The relative recall, that is, the sensitivity of the search string, is the retrieval overlap between the evaluated search string and a search string that captures only the benchmark publications. If there is little overlap (i.e., low recall or sensitivity), the evaluated search string should be improved to ensure that most of the relevant literature can be captured. The presented benchmarking approach can be applied to one or more online databases or search platforms. It is illustrated by five accessible, hands-on tutorials for commonly used online literature sources. Overall, our work provides an assessment of the current state of search string evaluations in published systematic reviews and protocols. It also paves the way to improve evaluation and reporting practices to make evidence synthesis more transparent and robust.
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 | 0.882 | 0.948 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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