Back

Enhancing Title and Abstract Priority Screening Through SimEd AI Pipeline.

Lecot, P.; Tonoli-Catez, H.; Noseda, A.; Buisse, T.; Chanut, S.; Chanel, I.

2026-06-30 health informatics
10.64898/2026.06.26.26356718 medRxiv
Show abstract

The exhaustive identification of evidence is central to systematic reviews, but the screening of titles and abstracts remains particularly labor intensive. Priority screening, an active learning approach that ranks records by estimated relevance, has emerged as an effective strategy to reduce screening workload. Its efficiency is commonly quantified using work saved over sampling at 100% recall (WSS@100%), representing the percentage reduction in effort compared with random screening. Although modern priority-screening models achieve high efficiency on many benchmark datasets, some reviews still exhibit low WSS@100%, indicating suboptimal retrieval. Our study sought to improve the retrieval of all relevant articles in challenging datasets to ensure better generalization of priority screening. We first showed using SYNERGY benchmark datasets that while the most advanced ELAS_h3 priority screening model from state-of-the-art ASReview LAB v.2 open-source software, efficiently retrieved most relevant articles, it struggled with the rare, final ones in challenging datasets. To address this, we tested a hybrid approach entitled SimEd AI: using ELAS_h3 for early retrieval and then applying supervised fine-tuning to the biomedical transformer BioMed-RoBERTa-base with these relevant articles to enhance the detection of the remaining difficult cases. We found that fine-tuning BioMed-RoBERTa-base model with 10 late-identified relevant and 10 hard irrelevant study titles and abstracts, enabled faster retrieval of articles of interest compared to ELAS_h3 alone. This approach increased WSS@100% from 46.5% (SD0.0%) to 83.3% (SD0.4%), while adding only an average of 22 minutes of computational time for fine-tuning and inference. The SimEd AI priority screening pipeline could be valuable for situations requiring highest possible recall. It could be particularly useful in scoping reviews with broad or diverse topics where traditional priority screening methods may miss subtle relevance signals. Further work should define a data-driven stopping rule for ending screening once the fine-tuned domain-specific transformer is applied at the final stage and assess generalizability across additional challenging datasets.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.5%
2
Research Synthesis Methods
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.9%
3
BMC Medical Research Methodology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.7%
4
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.4%
6
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.4%
7
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
8
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
9
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 47%
1.9%
10
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
11
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
13
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
Clinical Trials
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
16
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
17
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
18
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.5%
19
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
20
JMIR Medical Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
21
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Value in Health
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
23
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 57%
0.8%
24
Annals of Internal Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
25
Systematic Reviews
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
26
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 40%
0.6%
27
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%