Cargando…

SWIFT-Review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using machine learning approaches to priority rank studies and reduce human burden in screening literature when conducting systematic reviews. In addition, identifying addressable questions during the problem formulation phase of systematic review can be chal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Howard, Brian E., Phillips, Jason, Miller, Kyle, Tandon, Arpit, Mav, Deepak, Shah, Mihir R., Holmgren, Stephanie, Pelch, Katherine E., Walker, Vickie, Rooney, Andrew A., Macleod, Malcolm, Shah, Ruchir R., Thayer, Kristina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4877757/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27216467
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0263-z
_version_ 1782433439381716992
author Howard, Brian E.
Phillips, Jason
Miller, Kyle
Tandon, Arpit
Mav, Deepak
Shah, Mihir R.
Holmgren, Stephanie
Pelch, Katherine E.
Walker, Vickie
Rooney, Andrew A.
Macleod, Malcolm
Shah, Ruchir R.
Thayer, Kristina
author_facet Howard, Brian E.
Phillips, Jason
Miller, Kyle
Tandon, Arpit
Mav, Deepak
Shah, Mihir R.
Holmgren, Stephanie
Pelch, Katherine E.
Walker, Vickie
Rooney, Andrew A.
Macleod, Malcolm
Shah, Ruchir R.
Thayer, Kristina
author_sort Howard, Brian E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using machine learning approaches to priority rank studies and reduce human burden in screening literature when conducting systematic reviews. In addition, identifying addressable questions during the problem formulation phase of systematic review can be challenging, especially for topics having a large literature base. Here, we assess the performance of the SWIFT-Review priority ranking algorithm for identifying studies relevant to a given research question. We also explore the use of SWIFT-Review during problem formulation to identify, categorize, and visualize research areas that are data rich/data poor within a large literature corpus. METHODS: Twenty case studies, including 15 public data sets, representing a range of complexity and size, were used to assess the priority ranking performance of SWIFT-Review. For each study, seed sets of manually annotated included and excluded titles and abstracts were used for machine training. The remaining references were then ranked for relevance using an algorithm that considers term frequency and latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) topic modeling. This ranking was evaluated with respect to (1) the number of studies screened in order to identify 95 % of known relevant studies and (2) the “Work Saved over Sampling” (WSS) performance metric. To assess SWIFT-Review for use in problem formulation, PubMed literature search results for 171 chemicals implicated as EDCs were uploaded into SWIFT-Review (264,588 studies) and categorized based on evidence stream and health outcome. Patterns of search results were surveyed and visualized using a variety of interactive graphics. RESULTS: Compared with the reported performance of other tools using the same datasets, the SWIFT-Review ranking procedure obtained the highest scores on 11 out of 15 of the public datasets. Overall, these results suggest that using machine learning to triage documents for screening has the potential to save, on average, more than 50 % of the screening effort ordinarily required when using un-ordered document lists. In addition, the tagging and annotation capabilities of SWIFT-Review can be useful during the activities of scoping and problem formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Text-mining and machine learning software such as SWIFT-Review can be valuable tools to reduce the human screening burden and assist in problem formulation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0263-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4877757
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48777572016-05-25 SWIFT-Review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review Howard, Brian E. Phillips, Jason Miller, Kyle Tandon, Arpit Mav, Deepak Shah, Mihir R. Holmgren, Stephanie Pelch, Katherine E. Walker, Vickie Rooney, Andrew A. Macleod, Malcolm Shah, Ruchir R. Thayer, Kristina Syst Rev Methodology BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using machine learning approaches to priority rank studies and reduce human burden in screening literature when conducting systematic reviews. In addition, identifying addressable questions during the problem formulation phase of systematic review can be challenging, especially for topics having a large literature base. Here, we assess the performance of the SWIFT-Review priority ranking algorithm for identifying studies relevant to a given research question. We also explore the use of SWIFT-Review during problem formulation to identify, categorize, and visualize research areas that are data rich/data poor within a large literature corpus. METHODS: Twenty case studies, including 15 public data sets, representing a range of complexity and size, were used to assess the priority ranking performance of SWIFT-Review. For each study, seed sets of manually annotated included and excluded titles and abstracts were used for machine training. The remaining references were then ranked for relevance using an algorithm that considers term frequency and latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) topic modeling. This ranking was evaluated with respect to (1) the number of studies screened in order to identify 95 % of known relevant studies and (2) the “Work Saved over Sampling” (WSS) performance metric. To assess SWIFT-Review for use in problem formulation, PubMed literature search results for 171 chemicals implicated as EDCs were uploaded into SWIFT-Review (264,588 studies) and categorized based on evidence stream and health outcome. Patterns of search results were surveyed and visualized using a variety of interactive graphics. RESULTS: Compared with the reported performance of other tools using the same datasets, the SWIFT-Review ranking procedure obtained the highest scores on 11 out of 15 of the public datasets. Overall, these results suggest that using machine learning to triage documents for screening has the potential to save, on average, more than 50 % of the screening effort ordinarily required when using un-ordered document lists. In addition, the tagging and annotation capabilities of SWIFT-Review can be useful during the activities of scoping and problem formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Text-mining and machine learning software such as SWIFT-Review can be valuable tools to reduce the human screening burden and assist in problem formulation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0263-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4877757/ /pubmed/27216467 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0263-z Text en © Howard et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Methodology
Howard, Brian E.
Phillips, Jason
Miller, Kyle
Tandon, Arpit
Mav, Deepak
Shah, Mihir R.
Holmgren, Stephanie
Pelch, Katherine E.
Walker, Vickie
Rooney, Andrew A.
Macleod, Malcolm
Shah, Ruchir R.
Thayer, Kristina
SWIFT-Review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review
title SWIFT-Review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review
title_full SWIFT-Review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review
title_fullStr SWIFT-Review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review
title_full_unstemmed SWIFT-Review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review
title_short SWIFT-Review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review
title_sort swift-review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4877757/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27216467
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0263-z
work_keys_str_mv AT howardbriane swiftreviewatextminingworkbenchforsystematicreview
AT phillipsjason swiftreviewatextminingworkbenchforsystematicreview
AT millerkyle swiftreviewatextminingworkbenchforsystematicreview
AT tandonarpit swiftreviewatextminingworkbenchforsystematicreview
AT mavdeepak swiftreviewatextminingworkbenchforsystematicreview
AT shahmihirr swiftreviewatextminingworkbenchforsystematicreview
AT holmgrenstephanie swiftreviewatextminingworkbenchforsystematicreview
AT pelchkatherinee swiftreviewatextminingworkbenchforsystematicreview
AT walkervickie swiftreviewatextminingworkbenchforsystematicreview
AT rooneyandrewa swiftreviewatextminingworkbenchforsystematicreview
AT macleodmalcolm swiftreviewatextminingworkbenchforsystematicreview
AT shahruchirr swiftreviewatextminingworkbenchforsystematicreview
AT thayerkristina swiftreviewatextminingworkbenchforsystematicreview