Systematic reviews in minutes to hours using artificial intelligence
Bakker, L.; Caganek, T.; Rooprai, A.; Hume, S.
Show abstract
Systematic reviews are used in academia, biotechnology, pharmaceutical companies and government to synthesise and appraise large numbers of publications. The current (largely manual) workflow takes an average of 9-18 months1, at a cost of $100,000+ per review2. We built a platform, ScholaraAI, that leverages artificial intelligence to cut this to < 0.1% of the time, without compromising quality. ScholaraAI facilitates end-to-end systematic reviews; search, screening, data extraction, and analysis. The workflow is transparent, and the researcher is in the loop. Our approach is compliant with the PRISMA and RAISE frameworks. Compared to a benchmarking set of published systematic reviews, ScholaraAIs sensitivity for correctly included studies is 100% {+/-} 0%, its specificity for correctly excluded studies is 90.8 {+/-} 8.6%, and its accuracy for data extraction is 98.0 {+/-} 3.5%. The time taken per review was 3.67 hours {+/-} 1.26. We used ScholaraAI to produce a novel, up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis, which is presented here. ScholaraAI is free to try at app.scholara.ai.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 96%
- Investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of study effect estimates in meta-analyses of nutrition research 95%
- Development of a search filter to retrieve reports of interrupted time series studies from MEDLINE and PubMed 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The incubation period of COVID-19: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research 94%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 94%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Is an earlier onset of focal epilepsy associated with atypical language lateralization? A systematic review, meta-analysis and new data 83%
- Convergent neural representations of acute nociceptive pain in healthy volunteers: A large-scale fMRI meta-analysis 83%
- Problematic usage of the internet and eating disorders: a multifaceted, systematic review and meta-analysis 82%
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 93%
- Outbreaks of publications about emerging infectious diseases: the case of SARS-CoV-2 and Zika virus 93%
- Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: A systematic review 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.