Cargando…
Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing
We sought to apply natural language processing to the task of automatic risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature, which could speed the process of systematic review, provide information to guide research improvement activity, and support translation from preclinical to clinical research. We...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9298308/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34709718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1533 |
_version_ | 1784750675998015488 |
---|---|
author | Wang, Qianying Liao, Jing Lapata, Mirella Macleod, Malcolm |
author_facet | Wang, Qianying Liao, Jing Lapata, Mirella Macleod, Malcolm |
author_sort | Wang, Qianying |
collection | PubMed |
description | We sought to apply natural language processing to the task of automatic risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature, which could speed the process of systematic review, provide information to guide research improvement activity, and support translation from preclinical to clinical research. We use 7840 full‐text publications describing animal experiments with yes/no annotations for five risk of bias items. We implement a series of models including baselines (support vector machine, logistic regression, random forest), neural models (convolutional neural network, recurrent neural network with attention, hierarchical neural network) and models using BERT with two strategies (document chunk pooling and sentence extraction). We tune hyperparameters to obtain the highest F1 scores for each risk of bias item on the validation set and compare evaluation results on the test set to our previous regular expression approach. The F1 scores of best models on test set are 82.0% for random allocation, 81.6% for blinded assessment of outcome, 82.6% for conflict of interests, 91.4% for compliance with animal welfare regulations and 46.6% for reporting animals excluded from analysis. Our models significantly outperform regular expressions for four risk of bias items. For random allocation, blinded assessment of outcome, conflict of interests and animal exclusions, neural models achieve good performance; for animal welfare regulations, BERT model with a sentence extraction strategy works better. Convolutional neural networks are the overall best models. The tool is publicly available which may contribute to the future monitoring of risk of bias reporting for research improvement activities. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9298308 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92983082022-07-21 Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing Wang, Qianying Liao, Jing Lapata, Mirella Macleod, Malcolm Res Synth Methods Software Focus We sought to apply natural language processing to the task of automatic risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature, which could speed the process of systematic review, provide information to guide research improvement activity, and support translation from preclinical to clinical research. We use 7840 full‐text publications describing animal experiments with yes/no annotations for five risk of bias items. We implement a series of models including baselines (support vector machine, logistic regression, random forest), neural models (convolutional neural network, recurrent neural network with attention, hierarchical neural network) and models using BERT with two strategies (document chunk pooling and sentence extraction). We tune hyperparameters to obtain the highest F1 scores for each risk of bias item on the validation set and compare evaluation results on the test set to our previous regular expression approach. The F1 scores of best models on test set are 82.0% for random allocation, 81.6% for blinded assessment of outcome, 82.6% for conflict of interests, 91.4% for compliance with animal welfare regulations and 46.6% for reporting animals excluded from analysis. Our models significantly outperform regular expressions for four risk of bias items. For random allocation, blinded assessment of outcome, conflict of interests and animal exclusions, neural models achieve good performance; for animal welfare regulations, BERT model with a sentence extraction strategy works better. Convolutional neural networks are the overall best models. The tool is publicly available which may contribute to the future monitoring of risk of bias reporting for research improvement activities. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-11-05 2022-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9298308/ /pubmed/34709718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1533 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Software Focus Wang, Qianying Liao, Jing Lapata, Mirella Macleod, Malcolm Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing |
title | Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing |
title_full | Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing |
title_fullStr | Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing |
title_full_unstemmed | Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing |
title_short | Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing |
title_sort | risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing |
topic | Software Focus |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9298308/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34709718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1533 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wangqianying riskofbiasassessmentinpreclinicalliteratureusingnaturallanguageprocessing AT liaojing riskofbiasassessmentinpreclinicalliteratureusingnaturallanguageprocessing AT lapatamirella riskofbiasassessmentinpreclinicalliteratureusingnaturallanguageprocessing AT macleodmalcolm riskofbiasassessmentinpreclinicalliteratureusingnaturallanguageprocessing |