Cargando…

The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) tools exist that can reduce or replace human activities in repetitive or complex tasks. Yet, ML is underutilized within evidence synthesis, despite the steadily growing rate of primary study publication and the need to periodically update reviews to reflect new evid...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Muller, Ashley Elizabeth, Berg, Rigmor C., Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco, Ames, Heather M. R., Borge, Tiril C., Jardim, Patricia Sofia Jacobsen, Cooper, Chris, Rose, Christopher James
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9843684/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36650579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02171-y
_version_ 1784870464900825088
author Muller, Ashley Elizabeth
Berg, Rigmor C.
Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco
Ames, Heather M. R.
Borge, Tiril C.
Jardim, Patricia Sofia Jacobsen
Cooper, Chris
Rose, Christopher James
author_facet Muller, Ashley Elizabeth
Berg, Rigmor C.
Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco
Ames, Heather M. R.
Borge, Tiril C.
Jardim, Patricia Sofia Jacobsen
Cooper, Chris
Rose, Christopher James
author_sort Muller, Ashley Elizabeth
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) tools exist that can reduce or replace human activities in repetitive or complex tasks. Yet, ML is underutilized within evidence synthesis, despite the steadily growing rate of primary study publication and the need to periodically update reviews to reflect new evidence. Underutilization may be partially explained by a paucity of evidence on how ML tools can reduce resource use and time-to-completion of reviews. METHODS: This protocol describes how we will answer two research questions using a retrospective study design: Is there a difference in resources used to produce reviews using recommended ML versus not using ML, and is there a difference in time-to-completion? We will also compare recommended ML use to non-recommended ML use that merely adds ML use to existing procedures. We will retrospectively include all reviews conducted at our institute from 1 August 2020, corresponding to the commission of the first review in our institute that used ML. CONCLUSION: The results of this study will allow us to quantitatively estimate the effect of ML adoption on resource use and time-to-completion, providing our organization and others with better information to make high-level organizational decisions about ML. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-023-02171-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9843684
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98436842023-01-17 The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study Muller, Ashley Elizabeth Berg, Rigmor C. Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco Ames, Heather M. R. Borge, Tiril C. Jardim, Patricia Sofia Jacobsen Cooper, Chris Rose, Christopher James Syst Rev Methodology BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) tools exist that can reduce or replace human activities in repetitive or complex tasks. Yet, ML is underutilized within evidence synthesis, despite the steadily growing rate of primary study publication and the need to periodically update reviews to reflect new evidence. Underutilization may be partially explained by a paucity of evidence on how ML tools can reduce resource use and time-to-completion of reviews. METHODS: This protocol describes how we will answer two research questions using a retrospective study design: Is there a difference in resources used to produce reviews using recommended ML versus not using ML, and is there a difference in time-to-completion? We will also compare recommended ML use to non-recommended ML use that merely adds ML use to existing procedures. We will retrospectively include all reviews conducted at our institute from 1 August 2020, corresponding to the commission of the first review in our institute that used ML. CONCLUSION: The results of this study will allow us to quantitatively estimate the effect of ML adoption on resource use and time-to-completion, providing our organization and others with better information to make high-level organizational decisions about ML. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-023-02171-y. BioMed Central 2023-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9843684/ /pubmed/36650579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02171-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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 Methodology
Muller, Ashley Elizabeth
Berg, Rigmor C.
Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco
Ames, Heather M. R.
Borge, Tiril C.
Jardim, Patricia Sofia Jacobsen
Cooper, Chris
Rose, Christopher James
The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study
title The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study
title_full The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study
title_fullStr The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study
title_full_unstemmed The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study
title_short The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study
title_sort effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9843684/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36650579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02171-y
work_keys_str_mv AT mullerashleyelizabeth theeffectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT bergrigmorc theeffectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT menesesechavezjosefrancisco theeffectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT amesheathermr theeffectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT borgetirilc theeffectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT jardimpatriciasofiajacobsen theeffectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT cooperchris theeffectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT rosechristopherjames theeffectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT mullerashleyelizabeth effectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT bergrigmorc effectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT menesesechavezjosefrancisco effectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT amesheathermr effectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT borgetirilc effectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT jardimpatriciasofiajacobsen effectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT cooperchris effectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy
AT rosechristopherjames effectofmachinelearningtoolsforevidencesynthesisonresourceuseandtimetocompletionprotocolforaretrospectivepilotstudy