Cargando…

An evaluation of DistillerSR’s machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening – impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews often require substantial resources, partially due to the large number of records identified during searching. Although artificial intelligence may not be ready to fully replace human reviewers, it may accelerate and reduce the screening burden. Using DistillerSR (May...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hamel, C., Kelly, S. E., Thavorn, K., Rice, D. B., Wells, G. A., Hutton, B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7559198/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33059590
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01129-1
_version_ 1783594806841180160
author Hamel, C.
Kelly, S. E.
Thavorn, K.
Rice, D. B.
Wells, G. A.
Hutton, B.
author_facet Hamel, C.
Kelly, S. E.
Thavorn, K.
Rice, D. B.
Wells, G. A.
Hutton, B.
author_sort Hamel, C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews often require substantial resources, partially due to the large number of records identified during searching. Although artificial intelligence may not be ready to fully replace human reviewers, it may accelerate and reduce the screening burden. Using DistillerSR (May 2020 release), we evaluated the performance of the prioritization simulation tool to determine the reduction in screening burden and time savings. METHODS: Using a true recall @ 95%, response sets from 10 completed systematic reviews were used to evaluate: (i) the reduction of screening burden; (ii) the accuracy of the prioritization algorithm; and (iii) the hours saved when a modified screening approach was implemented. To account for variation in the simulations, and to introduce randomness (through shuffling the references), 10 simulations were run for each review. Means, standard deviations, medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) are presented. RESULTS: Among the 10 systematic reviews, using true recall @ 95% there was a median reduction in screening burden of 47.1% (IQR: 37.5 to 58.0%). A median of 41.2% (IQR: 33.4 to 46.9%) of the excluded records needed to be screened to achieve true recall @ 95%. The median title/abstract screening hours saved using a modified screening approach at a true recall @ 95% was 29.8 h (IQR: 28.1 to 74.7 h). This was increased to a median of 36 h (IQR: 32.2 to 79.7 h) when considering the time saved not retrieving and screening full texts of the remaining 5% of records not yet identified as included at title/abstract. Among the 100 simulations (10 simulations per review), none of these 5% of records were a final included study in the systematic review. The reduction in screening burden to achieve true recall @ 95% compared to @ 100% resulted in a reduced screening burden median of 40.6% (IQR: 38.3 to 54.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The prioritization tool in DistillerSR can reduce screening burden. A modified or stop screening approach once a true recall @ 95% is achieved appears to be a valid method for rapid reviews, and perhaps systematic reviews. This needs to be further evaluated in prospective reviews using the estimated recall.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7559198
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75591982020-10-15 An evaluation of DistillerSR’s machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening – impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes Hamel, C. Kelly, S. E. Thavorn, K. Rice, D. B. Wells, G. A. Hutton, B. BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews often require substantial resources, partially due to the large number of records identified during searching. Although artificial intelligence may not be ready to fully replace human reviewers, it may accelerate and reduce the screening burden. Using DistillerSR (May 2020 release), we evaluated the performance of the prioritization simulation tool to determine the reduction in screening burden and time savings. METHODS: Using a true recall @ 95%, response sets from 10 completed systematic reviews were used to evaluate: (i) the reduction of screening burden; (ii) the accuracy of the prioritization algorithm; and (iii) the hours saved when a modified screening approach was implemented. To account for variation in the simulations, and to introduce randomness (through shuffling the references), 10 simulations were run for each review. Means, standard deviations, medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) are presented. RESULTS: Among the 10 systematic reviews, using true recall @ 95% there was a median reduction in screening burden of 47.1% (IQR: 37.5 to 58.0%). A median of 41.2% (IQR: 33.4 to 46.9%) of the excluded records needed to be screened to achieve true recall @ 95%. The median title/abstract screening hours saved using a modified screening approach at a true recall @ 95% was 29.8 h (IQR: 28.1 to 74.7 h). This was increased to a median of 36 h (IQR: 32.2 to 79.7 h) when considering the time saved not retrieving and screening full texts of the remaining 5% of records not yet identified as included at title/abstract. Among the 100 simulations (10 simulations per review), none of these 5% of records were a final included study in the systematic review. The reduction in screening burden to achieve true recall @ 95% compared to @ 100% resulted in a reduced screening burden median of 40.6% (IQR: 38.3 to 54.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The prioritization tool in DistillerSR can reduce screening burden. A modified or stop screening approach once a true recall @ 95% is achieved appears to be a valid method for rapid reviews, and perhaps systematic reviews. This needs to be further evaluated in prospective reviews using the estimated recall. BioMed Central 2020-10-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7559198/ /pubmed/33059590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01129-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hamel, C.
Kelly, S. E.
Thavorn, K.
Rice, D. B.
Wells, G. A.
Hutton, B.
An evaluation of DistillerSR’s machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening – impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes
title An evaluation of DistillerSR’s machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening – impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes
title_full An evaluation of DistillerSR’s machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening – impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes
title_fullStr An evaluation of DistillerSR’s machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening – impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes
title_full_unstemmed An evaluation of DistillerSR’s machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening – impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes
title_short An evaluation of DistillerSR’s machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening – impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes
title_sort evaluation of distillersr’s machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening – impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7559198/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33059590
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01129-1
work_keys_str_mv AT hamelc anevaluationofdistillersrsmachinelearningbasedprioritizationtoolfortitleabstractscreeningimpactonreviewerrelevantoutcomes
AT kellyse anevaluationofdistillersrsmachinelearningbasedprioritizationtoolfortitleabstractscreeningimpactonreviewerrelevantoutcomes
AT thavornk anevaluationofdistillersrsmachinelearningbasedprioritizationtoolfortitleabstractscreeningimpactonreviewerrelevantoutcomes
AT ricedb anevaluationofdistillersrsmachinelearningbasedprioritizationtoolfortitleabstractscreeningimpactonreviewerrelevantoutcomes
AT wellsga anevaluationofdistillersrsmachinelearningbasedprioritizationtoolfortitleabstractscreeningimpactonreviewerrelevantoutcomes
AT huttonb anevaluationofdistillersrsmachinelearningbasedprioritizationtoolfortitleabstractscreeningimpactonreviewerrelevantoutcomes
AT hamelc evaluationofdistillersrsmachinelearningbasedprioritizationtoolfortitleabstractscreeningimpactonreviewerrelevantoutcomes
AT kellyse evaluationofdistillersrsmachinelearningbasedprioritizationtoolfortitleabstractscreeningimpactonreviewerrelevantoutcomes
AT thavornk evaluationofdistillersrsmachinelearningbasedprioritizationtoolfortitleabstractscreeningimpactonreviewerrelevantoutcomes
AT ricedb evaluationofdistillersrsmachinelearningbasedprioritizationtoolfortitleabstractscreeningimpactonreviewerrelevantoutcomes
AT wellsga evaluationofdistillersrsmachinelearningbasedprioritizationtoolfortitleabstractscreeningimpactonreviewerrelevantoutcomes
AT huttonb evaluationofdistillersrsmachinelearningbasedprioritizationtoolfortitleabstractscreeningimpactonreviewerrelevantoutcomes