Cargando…
RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials
Objective To develop and evaluate RobotReviewer, a machine learning (ML) system that automatically assesses bias in clinical trials. From a (PDF-formatted) trial report, the system should determine risks of bias for the domains defined by the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, and extract supporting...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4713900/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26104742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv044 |
_version_ | 1782410219563778048 |
---|---|
author | Marshall, Iain J Kuiper, Joël Wallace, Byron C |
author_facet | Marshall, Iain J Kuiper, Joël Wallace, Byron C |
author_sort | Marshall, Iain J |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective To develop and evaluate RobotReviewer, a machine learning (ML) system that automatically assesses bias in clinical trials. From a (PDF-formatted) trial report, the system should determine risks of bias for the domains defined by the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, and extract supporting text for these judgments. Methods We algorithmically annotated 12,808 trial PDFs using data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Trials were labeled as being at low or high/unclear risk of bias for each domain, and sentences were labeled as being informative or not. This dataset was used to train a multi-task ML model. We estimated the accuracy of ML judgments versus humans by comparing trials with two or more independent RoB assessments in the CDSR. Twenty blinded experienced reviewers rated the relevance of supporting text, comparing ML output with equivalent (human-extracted) text from the CDSR. Results By retrieving the top 3 candidate sentences per document (top3 recall), the best ML text was rated more relevant than text from the CDSR, but not significantly (60.4% ML text rated ‘highly relevant' v 56.5% of text from reviews; difference +3.9%, [−3.2% to +10.9%]). Model RoB judgments were less accurate than those from published reviews, though the difference was <10% (overall accuracy 71.0% with ML v 78.3% with CDSR). Conclusion Risk of bias assessment may be automated with reasonable accuracy. Automatically identified text supporting bias assessment is of equal quality to the manually identified text in the CDSR. This technology could substantially reduce reviewer workload and expedite evidence syntheses. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4713900 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47139002017-01-01 RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials Marshall, Iain J Kuiper, Joël Wallace, Byron C J Am Med Inform Assoc Research and Applications Objective To develop and evaluate RobotReviewer, a machine learning (ML) system that automatically assesses bias in clinical trials. From a (PDF-formatted) trial report, the system should determine risks of bias for the domains defined by the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, and extract supporting text for these judgments. Methods We algorithmically annotated 12,808 trial PDFs using data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Trials were labeled as being at low or high/unclear risk of bias for each domain, and sentences were labeled as being informative or not. This dataset was used to train a multi-task ML model. We estimated the accuracy of ML judgments versus humans by comparing trials with two or more independent RoB assessments in the CDSR. Twenty blinded experienced reviewers rated the relevance of supporting text, comparing ML output with equivalent (human-extracted) text from the CDSR. Results By retrieving the top 3 candidate sentences per document (top3 recall), the best ML text was rated more relevant than text from the CDSR, but not significantly (60.4% ML text rated ‘highly relevant' v 56.5% of text from reviews; difference +3.9%, [−3.2% to +10.9%]). Model RoB judgments were less accurate than those from published reviews, though the difference was <10% (overall accuracy 71.0% with ML v 78.3% with CDSR). Conclusion Risk of bias assessment may be automated with reasonable accuracy. Automatically identified text supporting bias assessment is of equal quality to the manually identified text in the CDSR. This technology could substantially reduce reviewer workload and expedite evidence syntheses. Oxford University Press 2016-01 2015-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4713900/ /pubmed/26104742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv044 Text en © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Research and Applications Marshall, Iain J Kuiper, Joël Wallace, Byron C RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials |
title | RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials |
title_full | RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials |
title_fullStr | RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials |
title_full_unstemmed | RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials |
title_short | RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials |
title_sort | robotreviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials |
topic | Research and Applications |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4713900/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26104742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv044 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT marshalliainj robotreviewerevaluationofasystemforautomaticallyassessingbiasinclinicaltrials AT kuiperjoel robotreviewerevaluationofasystemforautomaticallyassessingbiasinclinicaltrials AT wallacebyronc robotreviewerevaluationofasystemforautomaticallyassessingbiasinclinicaltrials |