Developing a fully automated evidence synthesis tool for identifying, assessing and collating the evidence
Abstract
Evidence synthesis is a key element of evidence-based medicine. However, it is currently hampered by being labour intensive meaning that many trials are not incorporated into robust evidence syntheses and that many are out of date. To overcome this, a variety of techniques are being explored, including using automation technology. Here, we describe a fully automated evidence synthesis system for intervention studies, one that identifies all the relevant evidence, assesses the evidence for reliability and collates it to estimate the relative effectiveness of an intervention. Techniques used include machine learning, natural language processing and rule-based systems. Results are visualised using modern visualisation techniques. We believe this to be the first, publicly available, automated evidence synthesis system: an evidence mapping tool that synthesises evidence on the fly.
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
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?
The benefits of using titles (N=4, 5%) include lower complexity for the data extraction task.
“while the benefits of using titles (N=4, 5%) include lower complexity for the data extraction task. 43”
From Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: a living systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [43]
The three publications that specifically mentioned titles also used abstracts in their datasets.
“while the three publications that specifically mentioned titles also used abstracts in their datasets. 43 , 73 , 74”
From Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: a living systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [43]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x · Cited by 660 · see citing works
RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials
Marshall, I. J., Kuiper, J., & Wallace, B. C. (2016) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocv044 · Cited by 317 · see citing works
Searching for unpublished data for Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study
Schroll, J. B., Bero, L., & Gotzsche, P. C. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f2231 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tools to support the automation of systematic reviews: a scoping review.
Khalil, H., Ameen, D., & Zarnegar, A. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.005 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: a living systematic review
Schmidt, L., Olorisade, B. K., McGuinness, L. A., Thomas, J., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2021) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.51117.1 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review
Schmidt, L., Finnerty Mutlu, A. N., Elmore, R., Olorisade, B. K., Thomas, J., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2025) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.51117.3 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Diagnosing the limits of large language models for structured scientific evidence extraction
Tan, Z., D’Souza, J., & Auer, S. (2026) · International Journal on Digital Libraries · doi:10.1007/s00799-026-00449-9
- Authors
- Brassey, J., Price, C., Edwards, J., Zlabinger, M., Bampoulidis, A., & Hanbury, A.
- Affiliations
- TU Wien (AT)
- Research Studios Austria (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Brassey, Jon
- Venue
- BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2019-08-29
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 24-27
- ISSN
- 1356-5524 (ISSN-L)
- 2515-446X
- 2515-4478
- OpenAlex
- W2970126114
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 2.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (No 644753 (KConnect))
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- evidence mapping, evidence-based medicine, intervention research, machine learning, natural language processing, rule-based systems
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Automation, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Reproducibility of Results
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