The DOI matches its Crossref record.
OP129 The Use Of A Text-Mining Screening Tool For Systematic Review Of Treatments For Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Abstract
Introduction: Human screening of title and abstracts in a systematic literature review (SLR) is labor intensive and time-consuming. In many instances, thousands of citations may be retrieved; the vast majority excluded upon screening. Text-mining semi-automates and accelerates screening by identifying patterns in relevant and irrelevant citations, as labelled by the screener. One such text-mining tool, Abstrackr, uses an algorithm within an active-learning framework to predict the likelihood of citations being relevant. The objective of this study was to assesses the performance of Abstrackr for title and abstract screening in an SLR of treatments for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Methods: Citations identified from searches of electronic databases were imported to Abstrackr. An investigator-selected database of terms indicating relevance of title and abstract to the research question were uploaded. These terms were partly informed by the SLR inclusion/exclusion criteria. Citations deemed most relevant by Abstrackr were screened first (screening prioritization). Screening was carried out until a maximum prediction score of 0.4 or less, based on previous experience in the literature, was reached. Remaining citations were deemed unlikely to be relevant and did not undergo screening (screening truncation). Separately, a single-human screener screened all citations using Covidence. Results: A total of 7,723 citations and 154 initial terms were uploaded to Abstrackr. Of these citations, 2,572 (33 percent) were screened before a prediction score of 0.39 was reached. Compared to single-human screening (conducted on all citations), the workload saving associated with Abstrackr was 5 days. A total of 451 (6 percent) citations proceeded to full-text screening; ten (0.1 percent) were included in the final evidence base. No citations predicted to be irrelevant by Abstrackr were included in the final evidence base. Conclusions: Text-mining tools such as Abstrackr have the potential to reduce workload associated with title and abstract screening, without missing relevant citations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“Despite the widespread use of Support Vector Machines (SVMs) in active learning [2,8,42,67], our results suggest that SVM can underperform compared to several other classifiers.”
From Large-scale simulation study of active learning models for systematic reviews (2025) · cites this paper as [8]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Large-scale simulation study of active learning models for systematic reviews
Teijema, J. J., de Bruin, J., Bagheri, A., & van de Schoot, R. (2025) · International Journal of Data Science and Analytics · doi:10.1007/s41060-025-00777-0 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Carey, N., Harte, M., & McCullagh, L.
- Venue
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2021-12
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- 2-2
- ISSN
- 0266-4623
- 1471-6348
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: OP129 The Use Of A Text-Mining Screening Tool For Systematic Review Of Treatments For Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0266462321000696
- The paper
- Carey, N., Harte, M., & McCullagh, L. (2021). OP129 The Use Of A Text-Mining Screening Tool For Systematic Review Of Treatments For Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462321000696