bioRxivNeurosciencePreprint
Applying Machine Learning to Increase Efficiency and Accuracy of Meta-Analytic Review
Aaron J. GorelikiD, Mark G. GorelikiD, Kathryn K. RidoutiD, Akua F. NimarkoiD, Virginia D. PeischiD, Shamanth R. KuramkoteiD, Michelle Low, Tracy PaniD, Simirthi Singh, Ananya Nrusimha, Manpreet Kaur SinghiD
- Citations
- 1
Abstract
The rapidly burgeoning quantity and complexity of publications makes curating and synthesizing information for meta-analyses ever more challenging. Meta-analyses require manual review of abstracts for study inclusion, which is time consuming, and variation among reviewer interpretation of inclusion/exclusion criteria for selecting a paper to be included in a review can impact a studys outcome. To address these challenges in efficiency and accuracy, we propose and evaluate a machine learning approach to capture the definition of inclusion/exclusion criteria using a machine learning model to automate the selection process. We trained machine learning models on a manually reviewed dataset from a meta-analysis of resilience factors influencing psychopathology development. Then, the trained models were applied to an oncology dataset and evaluated for efficiency and accuracy against trained human reviewers. The results suggest that machine learning models can be used to automate the paper selection process and reduce the abstract review time while maintaining accuracy comparable to trained human reviewers. We propose a novel approach which uses model confidence to propose a subset of abstracts for manual review, thereby increasing the accuracy of the automated review while reducing the total number of abstracts requiring manual review. Furthermore, we delineate how leveraging these models more broadly may facilitate the sharing and synthesis of research expertise across disciplines.
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Are Machines-learning Methods More Efficient than Humans in Triaging Literature for Systematic Reviews?
Ṣẹ̀yẹ Abògúnr̀in, Luisa Queiros, … Andreas Witzmann·bioRxiv·Sep 30, 2021
- Machine learning algorithms for systematic reviews: reducing workload in a preclinical review of animal studies and reducing human screening error
Alexandra Bannach‐Brown, Piotr Przybyła, … Malcolm Robert Macleod·Systematic ReviewsPeer-reviewed·Jan 15, 2019
- Operationalising LLM-assisted screening of literature to support systematic reviews
Scott Spillias, Laura Avila-Turriago, … Valeriya Komyakova·bioRxiv·Sep 24, 2026
- The PDF Data Extractor (PDE) Pre-screening Tool Reduced the Manual Review Burden for Systematic Literature Reviews by Over 35% Through Automated High-Throughput Assessment of Full-Text Articles
E. Stricker, M. E. Scheurer·bioRxiv·Jul 13, 2021
- Automation of citation screening in pre-clinical systematic reviews
Jing Liao, Sophia Ananiadou, … Malcolm Robert Macleod·bioRxiv·Jan 9, 2020
- External validation of machine learning models - registered models and adaptive sample splitting
Giuseppe Gallitto, Robert Englert, … Tamás Spisák·GigaSciencePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2025