CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 40Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsTopic Modeling

Can ChatGPT Write a Good Boolean Query for Systematic Review Literature Search?

Open access
Wang, Shuai, Scells, Harrisen, Koopman, Bevan, Zuccon, Guido·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2302.03495arXiv 2302.03495
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Systematic reviews are comprehensive reviews of the literature for a highly focused research question. These reviews are often treated as the highest form of evidence in evidence-based medicine, and are the key strategy to answer research questions in the medical field. To create a high-quality systematic review, complex Boolean queries are often constructed to retrieve studies for the review topic. However, it often takes a long time for systematic review researchers to construct a high quality systematic review Boolean query, and often the resulting queries are far from effective. Poor queries may lead to biased or invalid reviews, because they missed to retrieve key evidence, or to extensive increase in review costs, because they retrieved too many irrelevant studies. Recent advances in Transformer-based generative models have shown great potential to effectively follow instructions from users and generate answers based on the instructions being made. In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of the latest of such models, ChatGPT, in generating effective Boolean queries for systematic review literature search. Through a number of extensive experiments on standard test collections for the task, we find that ChatGPT is capable of generating queries that lead to high search precision, although trading-off this for recall. Overall, our study demonstrates the potential of ChatGPT in generating effective Boolean queries for systematic review literature search. The ability of ChatGPT to follow complex instructions and generate queries with high precision makes it a valuable tool for researchers conducting systematic reviews, particularly for rapid reviews where time is a constraint and often trading-off higher precision for lower recall is acceptable.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2302.03495

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.

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.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. 2019. Review Manager Web (RevMan Web).
  2. JJ García Adeva, JM Pikatza Atxa, M Ubeda Carrillo, and E Ansuategi Zengotitabengoa. 2014. Automatic Text Classification to Support Systematic Reviews in Medicine. Expert Systems with Applications 41, 4 (2014), 1498-1508.
  3. Amal Alharbi, William Briggs, and Mark Stevenson. 2018. Retrieving and Ranking Studies for Systematic Reviews: University of Sheffield's Approach to CLEF eHealth 2018 Task 2. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2018: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, Vol. 2125. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
  4. Amal Alharbi and Mark Stevenson. 2017. Ranking Abstracts to Identify Relevant Evidence for Systematic Reviews: The University of Sheffield's Approach to CLEF eHealth 2017 Task 2.. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2017: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
  5. Antonios Anagnostou, Athanasios Lagopoulos, Grigorios Tsoumakas, and Ioannis P Vlahavas. 2017. Combining Inter-Review Learning- to-Rank and Intra-Review Incremental Training for Title and Abstract Screening in Systematic Reviews.. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2017: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
  6. Maisie Badami, Boualem Benatallah, and Marcos Baez. 2022. Systematic Literature Review Search Query Refinement Pipeline: Incremental Enrichment and Adaptation. In International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Springer, 129-146.
  7. Florian Boudin, Jian-Yun Nie, and Martin Dawes. 2010. Clinical Information Retrieval Using Document and PICO Structure. In Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 822-830.
  8. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D. Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, and Amanda Askell. 2020. Language Models Are Few-Shot Learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877-1901.
  9. Kathi Canese and Sarah Weis. 2013. PubMed: the bibliographic database. The NCBI handbook 2, 1 (2013).
  10. Jiayi Chen, Su Chen, Yang Song, Hongyu Liu, Yueyao Wang, Qinmin Hu, Liang He, and Yan Yang. 2017. ECNU at 2017 eHealth Task 2: Technologically Assisted Reviews in Empirical Medicine.. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2017: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
  11. Justin Clark. 2013. Systematic Reviewing. In Methods of Clinical Epidemiology, Gail M. Williams Suhail A. R. Doi (Ed.). Springer.
  12. Justin Clark, Paul Glasziou, Chris Del Mar, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Paulina Stehlik, and Anna Mae Scott. 2020. A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study. Journal of clinical epidemiology 121 (2020), 81-90.
  13. Justin Michael Clark, Sharon Sanders, Matthew Carter, David Honeyman, Gina Cleo, Yvonne Auld, Debbie Booth, Patrick Condron, Christine Dalais, Sarah Bateup, et al. 2020. Improving the Translation of Search Strategies Using the Polyglot Search Translator: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the Medical Library Association 108, 2 (2020), 195.
  14. Vincent Claveau. 2021. Neural Text Generation for Query Expansion in Information Retrieval. In IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence. ACM, ESSENDON VIC Australia, 202-209. https://doi.org/10.1145/3486622.3493957 · DOI
  15. A.M. Cohen, W.R. Hersh, K. Peterson, and P.Y. Yen. 2006. Reducing workload in systematic review preparation using automated citation classification. JAMIA 13, 2 (2006), 206-219.
  16. Aaron M Cohen and Neil R Smalheiser. 2018. UIC/OHSU CLEF 2018 Task 2 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Ranking Using Publication Type Cluster Similarity Measures. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2018: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, Vol. 2125.
  17. Dina Demner-Fushman and Jimmy Lin. 2007. Answering Clinical Questions with Knowledge-Based and Statistical Techniques. Computational Linguistics 33, 1 (2007), 63-103.
  18. Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio, Federica Beghini, Federica Vezzani, and Geneviève Henrot. 2017. An Interactive Two-Dimensional Approach to Query Aspects Rewriting in Systematic Reviews. IMS Unipd at CLEF eHealth Task 2.. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2017: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
  19. Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio, Giacomo Ciuffreda, and Federica Vezzani. 2018. Interactive Sampling for Systematic Reviews. IMS Unipd at CLEF 2018 eHealth Task 2.. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2018: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
  20. Mette Brandt Eriksen and Tove Faber Frandsen. 2018. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 106, 4 (2018), 420.
  21. Roberto Gozalo-Brizuela and Eduardo C Garrido-Merchan. 2023. ChatGPT is not all you need. A State of the Art Review of large Generative AI models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04655 (2023). · arXiv
  22. Trisha Greenhalgh and Richard Peacock. 2005. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. Bmj 331, 7524 (2005), 1064-1065.
  23. Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2020. Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processing. arXiv:arXiv:2007.15779 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: February 2023. · arXiv
  24. Elke Hausner, Charlotte Guddat, Tatjana Hermanns, Ulrike Lampert, and Siw Waffenschmidt. 2015. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: validation showed the noninferiority of the objective approach. Journal of clinical epidemiology 68, 2 (2015), 191-199.
  25. Elke Hausner, Siw Waffenschmidt, Thomas Kaiser, and Michael Simon. 2012. Routine development of objectively derived search strategies. Systematic reviews 1, 1 (2012), 19.
  26. Noah Hollmann and Carsten Eickhoff. 2017. Ranking and Feedback-Based Stopping for Recall-Centric Document Retrieval.. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2017: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
  27. William Hsu, William Speier, and Ricky K Taira. 2012. Automated Extraction of Reported Statistical Analyses: Towards a Logical Representation of Clinical Trial Literature. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 2012. 350.
  28. Evangelos Kanoulas, Dan Li, Leif Azzopardi, and Rene Spijker. 2019. CLEF 2019 technology assisted reviews in empirical medicine overview. In CEUR workshop proceedings, Vol. 2380.
  29. Evangelos Kanoulas, Rene Spijker, Dan Li, and Leif Azzopardi. 2018. CLEF 2018 Technology Assisted Reviews in Empirical Medicine Overview. In CLEF 2018 Evaluation Labs and Workshop: Online Working Notes, CEUR-WS.
  30. Sarvnaz Karimi, Justin Zobel, Stefan Pohl, and Falk Scholer. 2009. The Challenge of High Recall in Biomedical Systematic Search. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Data and Text Mining in Bioinformatics. 89-92.
  31. S.N. Kim, D. Martinez, L. Cavedon, and L. Yencken. 2011. Automatic Classification of Sentences to Support Evidence Based Medicine. BMC bioinformatics 12, 2 (2011).
  32. Grace Eunkyung Lee. 2017. A Study of Convolutional Neural Networks for Clinical Document Classification in Systematic Reviews: Sysreview at CLEF eHealth 2017. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2017: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
  33. Hang Li, Harrisen Scells, and Guido Zuccon. 2020. Systematic review automation tools for end-to-end query formulation. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2141-2144.
  34. Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. A survey of pretrained language models based text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05273 (2022). · arXiv
  35. Valentin Liévin, Christoffer Egeberg Hother, and Ole Winther. 2023. Can Large Language Models Reason about Medical Questions? arXiv:2207.08143 [cs] · arXiv
  36. Vivian Liu and Lydia B Chilton. 2022. Design Guidelines for Prompt Engineering Text-to-Image Generative Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501825 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Renqian Luo, Liai Sun, Yingce Xia, Tao Qin, Sheng Zhang, Hoifung Poon, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2022. BioGPT: Generative Pre-Trained Transformer for Biomedical Text Generation and Mining. Briefings in Bioinformatics 23, 6 (Nov. 2022), bbac409. https://doi.org/10.1093/ bib/bbac409 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Iain J Marshall, Rachel Marshall, Byron C Wallace, Jon Brassey, and James Thomas. 2019. Rapid Reviews May Produce Different Results to Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Epidemiological Study. Journal of clinical epidemiology 109 (2019), 30-41.
  39. Iain J Marshall, Anna Noel-Storr, Joël Kuiper, James Thomas, and Byron C Wallace. 2018. Machine Learning for Identifying Randomized Controlled Trials: An Evaluation and Practitioner's Guide. Research synthesis methods 9, 4 (2018), 602-614.
  40. D. Martinez, S. Karimi, L. Cavedon, and T. Baldwin. 2008. Facilitating Biomedical Systematic Reviews Using Ranked Text Retrieval and Classification. In Proceedings of the 13th Australasian Document Computing Symposium.
  41. Adamantios Minas, Athanasios Lagopoulos, and Grigorios Tsoumakas. 2018. Aristotle University's Approach to the Technologically Assisted Reviews in Empirical Medicine Task of the 2018 CLEF eHealth Lab.. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2018: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
  42. M. Miwa, J. Thomas, A. O'Mara-Eves, and S. Ananiadou. 2014. Reducing systematic review workload through certainty-based screening. JBI 51 (2014), 242-253.
  43. Rodrigo Nogueira, Wei Yang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Jimmy Lin. 2019. Multi-stage document ranking with BERT. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.14424 (2019). · arXiv
  44. Christopher Norman, Mariska Leeflang, and Aurélie Névéol. 2018. LIMSI@ CLEF eHealth 2018 Task 2: Technology Assisted Reviews by Stacking Active and Static Learning.. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2018: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
  45. Christopher Norman12, Mariska Leeflang, and Aurélie Névéol. 2017. Limsi@ Clef Ehealth 2017 Task 2: Logistic Regression for Automatic Article Ranking. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2019: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
  46. Jonas Oppenlaender. 2022. A Taxonomy of Prompt Modifiers for Text-To-Image Generation. arXiv:2204.13988 [cs] · arXiv
  47. Mohammadreza Pourreza and Faezeh Ensan. 2022. Towards semantic-driven boolean query formalization for biomedical systematic literature reviews. International Journal of Medical Informatics (2022), 104928.
  48. Animesh Prasad, Manpreet Kaur, and Min-Yen Kan. 2018. Neural ParsCit: A Deep Learning Based Reference String Parser. Journal on Digital Libraries 19 (2018), 323-337.
  49. John Rathbone. 2017. Automating systematic reviews. Ph. D. Dissertation. Bond University.
  50. Scott Reeves, Ivan Koppel, Hugh Barr, Della Freeth, and Marilyn Hammick. 2002. Twelve Tips for Undertaking a Systematic Review. Medical teacher 24, 4 (2002).
  51. Laria Reynolds and Kyle McDonell. 2021. Prompt Programming for Large Language Models: Beyond the Few-Shot Paradigm. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3411763.3451760 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Raul Rodriguez-Esteban and Ivan Iossifov. 2009. Figure Mining for Biomedical Research. Bioinformatics 25, 16 (2009), 2082-2084.
  53. Tony Russell-Rose and Philip Gooch. 2018. 2dSearch: A Visual Approach to Search Strategy Formulation. In Proceedings of the 1st Biennial Conference on Design of Experimental Search and Information Retrieval Systems.
  54. José Antonio Salvador-Oliván, Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca, and Rosario Arquero-Avilés. 2019. Errors in Search Strategies Used in Systematic Reviews and Their Effects on Information Retrieval. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 107, 2 (April 2019), 210-221. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.567 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Margaret Sampson and Jessie McGowan. 2006. Errors in Search Strategies Were Identified by Type and Frequency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59, 10 (2006), 1057-e1.
  56. Harrisen Scells, Connor Forbes, Justin Clark, Bevan Koopman, and Guido Zuccon. 2022. The Impact of Query Refinement on Systematic Review Literature Search: A Query Log Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval. 34-42.
  57. Harrisen Scells and Guido Zuccon. 2018. Generating Better Queries for Systematic Reviews. In Proceedings of the 41st annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval (Ann Arbor, MI, USA) (SIGIR '18). 10 pages.
  58. Harrisen Scells and Guido Zuccon. 2018. searchrefiner: A Query Visualisation and Understanding Tool for Systematic Reviews. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 1939-1942.
  59. Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, Anthony Deacon, and Bevan Koopman. 2017. QUT Ielab at CLEF eHealth 2017 Technology Assisted Reviews Track: Initial Experiments with Learning to Rank. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2017: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
  60. Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, and Bevan Koopman. 2019. Automatic Boolean Query Refinement for Systematic Review Literature Search. In The World Wide Web Conference. 1646-1656.
  61. Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, and Bevan Koopman. 2020. A Comparison of Automatic Boolean Query Formulation for Systematic Reviews. Information Retrieval Journal (2020), 1-26.
  62. Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, Bevan Koopman, and Justin Clark. 2020. Automatic Boolean Query Formulation for Systematic Review Literature Search. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. 1071-1081.
  63. Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, Bevan Koopman, and Justin Clark. 2020. A Computational Approach for Objectively Derived Systematic Review Search Strategies. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 385-398.
  64. Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, Mohamed A Sharaf, and Bevan Koopman. 2020. Sampling Query Variations for Learning to Rank to Improve Automatic Boolean Query Generation in Systematic Reviews. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. 3041-3048.
  65. Michael Simon, Elke Hausner, Susan F Klaus, and Nancy E Dunton. 2010. Identifying Nurse Staffing Research in Medline: Development and Testing of Empirically Derived Search Strategies with the PubMed Interface. BMC medical research methodology 10, 1 (2010), 76.
  66. Gaurav Singh, Iain Marshall, James Thomas, and Byron Wallace. 2017. Identifying Diagnostic Test Accuracy Publications Using a Deep Model. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2017: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, Vol. 1866.
  67. Jaspreet Singh and Lini Thomas. 2017. IIIT-H at CLEF eHealth 2017 Task 2: Technologically Assisted Reviews in Empirical Medicine.. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2017: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
  68. Claire Stansfield, James Thomas, and Josephine Kavanagh. 2013. 'Clustering' Documents Automatically to Support Scoping Reviews of Research: A Case Study. Research synthesis methods 4, 3 (2013), 230-241.
  69. Rodney Summerscales, Shlomo Argamon, Jordan Hupert, and Alan Schwartz. 2009. Identifying Treatments, Groups, and Outcomes in Medical Abstracts. In Proceedings of the 6th Midwest Computational Linguistics Colloquium.
  70. Rodney L Summerscales, Shlomo Argamon, Shangda Bai, Jordan Hupert, and Alan Schwartz. 2011. Automatic Summarization of Results from Clinical Trials. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine. 372-377.
  71. James Thomas and Angela Harden. 2008. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology 8, 1 (2008), 45.
  72. Prem Timsina, Jun Liu, and Omar El-Gayar. 2016. Advanced Analytics for the Automation of Medical Systematic Reviews. Information Systems Frontiers 18, 2 (2016), 237-252.
  73. Mercedes Torres Torres and Clive E Adams. 2017. RevManHAL: towards automatic text generation in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 6, 1 (2017).
  74. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017).
  75. Shuai Wang, Hang Li, Harrisen Scells, Daniel Locke, and Guido Zuccon. 2021. Mesh term suggestion for systematic review literature search. In Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Document Computing Symposium. 1-8.
  76. Shuai Wang, Hang Li, and Guido Zuccon. 2022. MeSH Suggester: A Library and System for MeSH Term Suggestion for Systematic Review Boolean Query Construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09018 (2022). · arXiv
  77. Shuai Wang, Harrisen Scells, Justin Clark, Bevan Koopman, and Guido Zuccon. 2022. From little things big things grow: A collection with seed studies for medical systematic review literature search. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 3176-3186.
  78. Huaying Wu, Tingting Wang, Jiayi Chen, Su Chen, Qinmin Hu, and Liang He. 2018. Ecnu at 2018 Ehealth Task 2: Technologically Assisted Reviews in Empirical Medicine. Methods-a Companion to Methods in Enzymology 4, 5 (2018), 7.
  79. Zhe Yu and Tim Menzies. 2017. Data Balancing for Technologically Assisted Reviews: Undersampling or Reweighting.. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Working Notes of CLEF 2017: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, S., Scells, H., Koopman, B., & Zuccon, G.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Leipzig University (DE)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2302.03495
arXiv
2302.03495
OpenAlex
W4320342216
Cited by
40
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 22
FWCI
1.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
ChatGPT, Boolean queries, query generation, large language models, precision-recall trade-off, rapid review, search effectiveness, evidence-based medicine

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