Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Automation of citation screening in pre-clinical systematic reviews

J. Liao, S. Ananiadou, L. G. Currie, B. E. Howard, A. Rice, S. E. Sena, J. Thomas, A. Varghese, M.R. Macleod
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/280131
J. Liao
1University of Edinburgh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: shihikoo@gmail.com
S. Ananiadou
2School of Computer Science, National Centre for Text Mining, University of Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L. G. Currie
1University of Edinburgh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. E. Howard
3SciOme LLC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Rice
4Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. E. Sena
1University of Edinburgh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Thomas
5Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating (EPPI)-Centre, Social Science Research
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Varghese
6ICF
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M.R. Macleod
1University of Edinburgh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background The amount of published in vivo studies and the speed researchers are publishing them make it virtually impossible to follow the recent development in the field. Systematic review emerged as a method to summarise and analyse the studies quantitatively and critically but it is often out-of-date due to its lengthy process.

Method We invited five machine learning and text-mining groups to build classifiers for identifying publications relevant to neuropathic pain (33814 training publications). We kept 1188 publications for the assessment of the performance of different classifiers. Two groups participated in the next stage: testing their algorithm on datasets labeled for psychosis (11777/2944) and datasets labeled for Vitamin D in multiple sclerosis (train/text: 2038/510).

Result The performances (sensitive/specificity) of the most promising classifier built for neuropathic pain are: 95%/84%. The performance for psychosis and Vitamin D in multiple sclerosis datasets are 95%/73% and 100%/45%.

Conclusions Machine learning can significantly reduce the irrelevant publications in a systematic review, and save the scientists’ time and money. Classifier algorithms built for one dataset can be reapplied on another dataset in different field. We are building a machine learning service at the back of Systematic Review & Meta-analysis Facility (SyRF).

Footnotes

  • Add acknowledgement section to including the funding body.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 09, 2020.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Automation of citation screening in pre-clinical systematic reviews
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Automation of citation screening in pre-clinical systematic reviews
J. Liao, S. Ananiadou, L. G. Currie, B. E. Howard, A. Rice, S. E. Sena, J. Thomas, A. Varghese, M.R. Macleod
bioRxiv 280131; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/280131
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Automation of citation screening in pre-clinical systematic reviews
J. Liao, S. Ananiadou, L. G. Currie, B. E. Howard, A. Rice, S. E. Sena, J. Thomas, A. Varghese, M.R. Macleod
bioRxiv 280131; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/280131

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Scientific Communication and Education
  • Neuroscience
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4395)
  • Biochemistry (9619)
  • Bioengineering (7111)
  • Bioinformatics (24915)
  • Biophysics (12642)
  • Cancer Biology (9980)
  • Cell Biology (14388)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (7977)
  • Ecology (12135)
  • Epidemiology (2067)
  • Evolutionary Biology (16010)
  • Genetics (10938)
  • Genomics (14764)
  • Immunology (9889)
  • Microbiology (23719)
  • Molecular Biology (9493)
  • Neuroscience (50969)
  • Paleontology (370)
  • Pathology (1544)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2688)
  • Physiology (4031)
  • Plant Biology (8685)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1512)
  • Synthetic Biology (2403)
  • Systems Biology (6446)
  • Zoology (1346)