Back

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.

2026-09-10 health informatics
10.64898/2026.09.08.26362546 medRxiv
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.

50% of probability mass above

"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.