Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2

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

Carey, Niamh, Harte, Marie, McCullagh, Laura·2021·International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0266462321000696

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Metadata

Authors
Carey, N., Harte, M., & McCullagh, L.
Venue
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.