Preserving a decade of machine-learning validity across a ground-up refactoring: a five-tier automated validation of RCT-Reviewer, an independent modernization of RobotReviewer
Sahu, V.; Sahu, A.
Show abstract
Evidence-synthesis teams increasingly depend on machine-learning tools to automate risk-of-bias assessment, but these tools frequently rely on unrunnable, deprecated software stacks. Refactoring legacy tools into modern environments is essential for maintenance, yet introduces a critical risk: silently invalidating published performance metrics. Without rigorous validation, systematic reviewers cannot trust that modernized tools retain their predecessors' behavior. We present a five-tier validation framework applied to RCT-Reviewer, an independent ground-up modernization of the widely used RobotReviewer system. To prove preservation, we engineered a compatibility shim to execute the original 2017 code alongside the modernized tool using byte-identical weight files. The framework evaluated predictive validity on a human-labelled benchmark, quantified the cost of dropping obsolete ensemble components, proved bit-exact fidelity, tested parser robustness at scale, and included an external validation arm evaluating agreement on 313 trials against a recent reference standard. A control experiment showing 100% agreement between legacy and modernized implementations on identical text proved that variance versus published values is driven by PDF provenance (open-access versus publisher typeset) rather than codebase refactoring. The modernized tool perfectly reproduced original risk-of-bias judgements in 6,018 comparisons. While the screening classifier experienced a bounded performance reduction (F1 0.969 to 0.925) from removing obsolete components, the model's core mathematical validity is preserved. These results establish that reviewers can deploy a maintainable modernization with a clearly bounded performance trade-off, offering a reusable validation framework for clinical NLP modernizations. Future work will explore retraining obsolete neural network components to close the performance gap.
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- MelAnalyze: Fact-Checking Melatonin claims using Large Language Models and Natural Language Inference 94%
- Evaluating Semantic Similarity Methods for Comparison of Text-derived Phenotype Profiles 91%
- Large language models (GPT-5, Grok-4, Claude Opus 4.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieved textbook-level accuracy on the Japanese medical licensing examination by 2025: A comparative study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- CONSORT-TM: Text classification models for assessing the completeness of randomized controlled trial publications 93%
- Toward Trustworthy Chatbots: A Protocol for Red Teaming for Health Related Conversations 92%
- Large Language Models for Zero-Shot Procedure Extraction in Orthopedic Surgery: A Comparative Evaluation 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Enriching Representation Learning Using 53 Million Patient Notes through Human Phenotype Ontology Embedding 91%
- Comparing neural language models for medical concept representation and patient trajectory prediction 91%
- The role of natural language processing in cancer care: a systematic scoping review with narrative synthesis 90%
"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.