The efficiency of machine learning-assisted platform for article screening in systematic reviews in orthopaedics
Abstract
Purpose With the development of machine learning and artificial intelligence, various platforms were developed to aid in the time-consuming process of article screening in systematic reviews. We aim to analyze the efficiency of a machine learning-assisted platform as an end-user to aid in the screening of the articles for selection into systematic review in orthopaedic surgery. Methods We included three previously published systematic reviews in the field of orthopaedics of increasing levels of difficulty in the structure of the research question to assess the efficiency of a platform with active-learning technology for article screening. We compared the efficiency of the platform compared to the traditional screening and also across the various scenarios tested. We performed five iterations for each review analyzed. The outcome parameters analyzed were the work saved at 95% recall (WSS-95), work saved at 100% recall (WSS-100), and relevant records found after screening the first 30% of the total records (RRF-30). Results The machine learning-assisted screening significantly improved the rate of identifying the relevant records compared to the traditional screening method (p<0.001). The WSS-95 for the easy, intermediate, and advanced screening scenarios were 78%, 59%, and 38%, respectively. The WSS-100 for the easy, intermediate, and advanced screening scenarios were 75%, 48%, and 7%, respectively. The RRF-30 for the easy, intermediate, and advanced screening scenarios were 97%, 86%, and 64%, respectively. We noted a significant reduction (p<0.001) in the efficiency with the increasing level of difficulty of the screening scenarios. Conclusion The machine learning platform is significantly better than the traditional method as an assistive technology to aid in article screening. However, the efficiency of the platform significantly decreases as the complexity of the research question increases.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Variability in findings has been attributed to default settings and model choices: different machine learning classifiers yield varying outcomes in ASReview, and parameter optimization can strongly affect both ASReview and LLM results.
“Variability in findings has also been attributed to default settings and model choices: different machine learning classifiers (e.g., logistic regression, neural networks, or random forests) yield varying outcomes in ASReview, and parameter optimization can strongly affect both ASReview and LLM results (Muthu, 2023;Pijls, 2023).”
From Machine Learning-Assisted Systematic Review: A Case Study in Learning Analytics (2025) · cites this paper as Muthu, 2023
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283 · see citing works
An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews
van de Schoot, R., de Bruin, J., Schram, R., Zahedi, P., de Boer, J., Weijdema, F., Kramer, B., Huijts, M., Hoogerwerf, M., Ferdinands, G., et al. (2021) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-020-00287-7 · Cited by 1,157 · see citing works
Reducing Workload in Systematic Review Preparation Using Automated Citation Classification
Cohen, A. M., Hersh, W. R., Peterson, K., & Yen, P.-Y. (2006) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1929 · Cited by 411 · see citing works
Iterative guided machine learning-assisted systematic literature reviews: A diabetes case study
Zimmerman, J., Soler, R. E., Lavinder, J., Murphy, S., Atkins, C., Hulbert, L., Lusk, R., & Ng, B. P. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01640-6 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Machine Learning-Assisted Systematic Review: A Case Study in Learning Analytics
Xu, Z., Zhuang, X., & Ma, S. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15111488
- Authors
- Muthu, S.
- Affiliations
- Orthopaedic Research Group (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Muthu, Sathish
- ORCID
- Muthu, Sathish
- Venue
- International Orthopaedics
- Published
- 2022-12-23
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 551-556
- ISSN
- 0341-2695 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-5195
- OpenAlex
- W4312114539
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 1.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- International Orthopaedics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- article screening, systematic reviews, orthopedic surgery, active learning (machine learning), screening efficiency
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Systematic Reviews as Topic, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Orthopedics, Orthopedic Procedures
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review