Cargando…

Prioritising references for systematic reviews with RobotAnalyst: A user study

Screening references is a time‐consuming step necessary for systematic reviews and guideline development. Previous studies have shown that human effort can be reduced by using machine learning software to prioritise large reference collections such that most of the relevant references are identified...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Przybyła, Piotr, Brockmeier, Austin J., Kontonatsios, Georgios, Le Pogam, Marie‐Annick, McNaught, John, von Elm, Erik, Nolan, Kay, Ananiadou, Sophia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175382/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29956486
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1311
_version_ 1783361497397723136
author Przybyła, Piotr
Brockmeier, Austin J.
Kontonatsios, Georgios
Le Pogam, Marie‐Annick
McNaught, John
von Elm, Erik
Nolan, Kay
Ananiadou, Sophia
author_facet Przybyła, Piotr
Brockmeier, Austin J.
Kontonatsios, Georgios
Le Pogam, Marie‐Annick
McNaught, John
von Elm, Erik
Nolan, Kay
Ananiadou, Sophia
author_sort Przybyła, Piotr
collection PubMed
description Screening references is a time‐consuming step necessary for systematic reviews and guideline development. Previous studies have shown that human effort can be reduced by using machine learning software to prioritise large reference collections such that most of the relevant references are identified before screening is completed. We describe and evaluate RobotAnalyst, a Web‐based software system that combines text‐mining and machine learning algorithms for organising references by their content and actively prioritising them based on a relevancy classification model trained and updated throughout the process. We report an evaluation over 22 reference collections (most are related to public health topics) screened using RobotAnalyst with a total of 43 610 abstract‐level decisions. The number of references that needed to be screened to identify 95% of the abstract‐level inclusions for the evidence review was reduced on 19 of the 22 collections. Significant gains over random sampling were achieved for all reviews conducted with active prioritisation, as compared with only two of five when prioritisation was not used. RobotAnalyst's descriptive clustering and topic modelling functionalities were also evaluated by public health analysts. Descriptive clustering provided more coherent organisation than topic modelling, and the content of the clusters was apparent to the users across a varying number of clusters. This is the first large‐scale study using technology‐assisted screening to perform new reviews, and the positive results provide empirical evidence that RobotAnalyst can accelerate the identification of relevant studies. The results also highlight the issue of user complacency and the need for a stopping criterion to realise the work savings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6175382
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61753822018-10-19 Prioritising references for systematic reviews with RobotAnalyst: A user study Przybyła, Piotr Brockmeier, Austin J. Kontonatsios, Georgios Le Pogam, Marie‐Annick McNaught, John von Elm, Erik Nolan, Kay Ananiadou, Sophia Res Synth Methods Research Articles Screening references is a time‐consuming step necessary for systematic reviews and guideline development. Previous studies have shown that human effort can be reduced by using machine learning software to prioritise large reference collections such that most of the relevant references are identified before screening is completed. We describe and evaluate RobotAnalyst, a Web‐based software system that combines text‐mining and machine learning algorithms for organising references by their content and actively prioritising them based on a relevancy classification model trained and updated throughout the process. We report an evaluation over 22 reference collections (most are related to public health topics) screened using RobotAnalyst with a total of 43 610 abstract‐level decisions. The number of references that needed to be screened to identify 95% of the abstract‐level inclusions for the evidence review was reduced on 19 of the 22 collections. Significant gains over random sampling were achieved for all reviews conducted with active prioritisation, as compared with only two of five when prioritisation was not used. RobotAnalyst's descriptive clustering and topic modelling functionalities were also evaluated by public health analysts. Descriptive clustering provided more coherent organisation than topic modelling, and the content of the clusters was apparent to the users across a varying number of clusters. This is the first large‐scale study using technology‐assisted screening to perform new reviews, and the positive results provide empirical evidence that RobotAnalyst can accelerate the identification of relevant studies. The results also highlight the issue of user complacency and the need for a stopping criterion to realise the work savings. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-07-30 2018-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6175382/ /pubmed/29956486 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1311 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Przybyła, Piotr
Brockmeier, Austin J.
Kontonatsios, Georgios
Le Pogam, Marie‐Annick
McNaught, John
von Elm, Erik
Nolan, Kay
Ananiadou, Sophia
Prioritising references for systematic reviews with RobotAnalyst: A user study
title Prioritising references for systematic reviews with RobotAnalyst: A user study
title_full Prioritising references for systematic reviews with RobotAnalyst: A user study
title_fullStr Prioritising references for systematic reviews with RobotAnalyst: A user study
title_full_unstemmed Prioritising references for systematic reviews with RobotAnalyst: A user study
title_short Prioritising references for systematic reviews with RobotAnalyst: A user study
title_sort prioritising references for systematic reviews with robotanalyst: a user study
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175382/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29956486
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1311
work_keys_str_mv AT przybyłapiotr prioritisingreferencesforsystematicreviewswithrobotanalystauserstudy
AT brockmeieraustinj prioritisingreferencesforsystematicreviewswithrobotanalystauserstudy
AT kontonatsiosgeorgios prioritisingreferencesforsystematicreviewswithrobotanalystauserstudy
AT lepogammarieannick prioritisingreferencesforsystematicreviewswithrobotanalystauserstudy
AT mcnaughtjohn prioritisingreferencesforsystematicreviewswithrobotanalystauserstudy
AT vonelmerik prioritisingreferencesforsystematicreviewswithrobotanalystauserstudy
AT nolankay prioritisingreferencesforsystematicreviewswithrobotanalystauserstudy
AT ananiadousophia prioritisingreferencesforsystematicreviewswithrobotanalystauserstudy