Extracting the Sample Size From Randomized Controlled Trials in Explainable Fashion Using Natural Language Processing
Windisch, P.; Dennstaedt, F.; Koechli, C.; Foerster, R.; Schroeder, C.; Aebersold, D. M.; Zwahlen, D. R.
Show abstract
BackgroundExtracting the sample size from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remains a challenge to developing better search functionalities or automating systematic reviews. Most current approaches rely on the sample size being explicitly mentioned in the abstract. Methods847 RCTs from high-impact medical journals were tagged with six different entities that could indicate the sample size. A named entity recognition (NER) model was trained to extract the entities and then deployed on a test set of 150 RCTs. The entities performance in predicting the actual number of trial participants who were randomized was assessed and possible combinations of the entities were evaluated to create predictive models. ResultsThe most accurate model could make predictions for 64.7% of trials in the test set, and the resulting predictions were within 10% of the ground truth in 96.9% of cases. A less strict model could make a prediction for 96.0% of trials, and its predictions were within 10% of the ground truth in 88.2% of cases. ConclusionTraining a named entity recognition model to predict the sample size from randomized controlled trials is feasible, not only if the sample size is explicitly mentioned but also if the sample size can be calculated, e.g., by adding up the number of patients in each arm.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of SURUS: a Named Entity Recognition System to Extract Knowledge from Interventional Study Records 95%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 94%
- Scalable information extraction from free text electronic health records using large language models 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- MelAnalyze: Fact-Checking Melatonin claims using Large Language Models and Natural Language Inference 92%
- On the predictability of postoperative complications for cancer patients: a Portuguese cohort study 91%
- An Ontology-based Approach to Guide and Document Variable and Data Source Selection and Data Integration Process to Support Integrative Data Analysis in Cancer Outcomes Research 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Toward Assessing Clinical Trial Publications for Reporting Transparency 95%
- Developing A Deep Learning Natural Language Processing Algorithm For Automated Reporting Of Adverse Drug Reactions 94%
- Natural language processing for scalable feature engineering and ultra-high-dimensional confounding adjustment in healthcare database studies 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.