Back

Applying Machine Learning to Increase Efficiency and Accuracy of Meta-Analytic Review

Gorelik, A. J.; Gorelik, M. G.; Ridout, K. K.; Nimarko, A. F.; Peisch, V.; Kuramkote, S. R.; Low, M.; Pan, T.; Singh, S.; Nrusimha, A.; Singh, M. K.

2020-10-08 neuroscience
10.1101/2020.10.06.314245 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The rapidly burgeoning quantity and complexity of publications makes curating and synthesizing information for meta-analyses ever more challenging. Meta-analyses require manual review of abstracts for study inclusion, which is time consuming, and variation among reviewer interpretation of inclusion/exclusion criteria for selecting a paper to be included in a review can impact a studys outcome. To address these challenges in efficiency and accuracy, we propose and evaluate a machine learning approach to capture the definition of inclusion/exclusion criteria using a machine learning model to automate the selection process. We trained machine learning models on a manually reviewed dataset from a meta-analysis of resilience factors influencing psychopathology development. Then, the trained models were applied to an oncology dataset and evaluated for efficiency and accuracy against trained human reviewers. The results suggest that machine learning models can be used to automate the paper selection process and reduce the abstract review time while maintaining accuracy comparable to trained human reviewers. We propose a novel approach which uses model confidence to propose a subset of abstracts for manual review, thereby increasing the accuracy of the automated review while reducing the total number of abstracts requiring manual review. Furthermore, we delineate how leveraging these models more broadly may facilitate the sharing and synthesis of research expertise across disciplines.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Research Synthesis Methods
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
47.8%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.0%
50% of probability mass above
3
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
4
European Journal of Epidemiology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
5
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.2%
7
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 13%
2.2%
8
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
9
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
10
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.6%
11
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
12
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
13
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
14
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
15
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
16
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
17
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.8%
18
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
19
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.8%
21
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.8%
22
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
23
BMC Medical Genomics
36 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
24
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 48%
0.5%