CLEF 2017 technologically assisted reviews in empirical medicine overview

Systematic reviews are a widely used method to provide an overview over the current scientific consensus, by bringing together multiple studies in a reliable, transparent way. The large and growing number of published studies, and their increasing rate of publication, makes the task of identifying all relevant studies in an unbiased way both complex and time consuming to the extent that jeopardizes the validity of their findings and the ability to inform policy and practice in a timely manner. The CLEF 2017 e-Health Lab Task 2 focuses on the efficient and effective ranking of studies during the abstract and title screening phase of conducting Diagnostic Test Accuracy systematic reviews. We constructed a benchmark collection of fifty such reviews and the corresponding relevant and irrelevant articles found by the original Boolean query. Fourteen teams participated in the task, submitting 68 automatic and semi-automatic runs, using information retrieval and machine learning algorithms over a variety of text representations, in a batch and iterative manner. This paper reports both the methodology used to construct the benchmark collection, and the results of the evaluation

Technology Assisted Reviews: Finding the Last Few Relevant Documents by Asking Yes/No Questions to Reviewers

The goal of a technology-assisted review is to achieve high recall with low human effort. Continuous active learning algorithms have demonstrated good performance in locating the majority of relevant documents in a collection, however their performance is reaching a plateau when 80\%-90\% of them has been found. Finding the last few relevant documents typically requires exhaustively reviewing the collection. In this paper, we propose a novel method to identify these last few, but significant, documents efficiently. Our method makes the hypothesis that entities carry vital information in documents, and that reviewers can answer questions about the presence or absence of an entity in the missing relevance documents. Based on this we devise a sequential Bayesian search method that selects the optimal sequence of questions to ask. The experimental results show that our proposed method can greatly improve performance requiring less reviewing effort.Comment: This paper is accepted by SIGIR 201

Search strategy formulation for systematic reviews: Issues, challenges and opportunities

Systematic literature reviews play a vital role in identifying the best available evidence for health and social care research, policy, and practice. The resources required to produce systematic reviews can be significant, and a key to the success of any review is the search strategy used to identify relevant literature. However, the methods used to construct search strategies can be complex, time consuming, resource intensive and error prone. In this review, we examine the state of the art in resolving complex structured information needs, focusing primarily on the healthcare context. We analyse the literature to identify key challenges and issues and explore appropriate solutions and workarounds. From this analysis we propose a way forward to facilitate trust and to aid explainability and transparency, reproducibility and replicability through a set of key design principles for tools to support the development of search strategies in systematic literature reviews

Ranking abstracts to identify relevant evidence for systematic reviews: The University of Sheffield's approach to CLEF eHealth 2017 Task 2: Working notes for CLEF 2017

This paper describes Sheffield University's submission to CLEF 2017 eHealth Task 2: Technologically Assisted Reviews in Empirical Medicine. This task focusses on the identification of relevant evidence for systematic reviews in the medical domain. Participants are provided with systematic review topics (including title, Boolean query and set of PubMed abstracts returned) and asked to identify the abstracts that provide evidence relevant to the review topic. Sheffield University participated in the simple evaluation. Our approach was to rank the set of PubMed abstracts returned by the query by making use of information in the topic including title and Boolean query. Ranking was based on a simple TF.IDF weighted cosine similarity measure. This paper reports results obtained from six runs: four submitted to the official evaluation, an additional run and a baseline approach

Generating Natural Language Queries for More Effective Systematic Review Screening Prioritisation

Screening prioritisation in medical systematic reviews aims to rank the set of documents retrieved by complex Boolean queries. The goal is to prioritise the most important documents so that subsequent review steps can be carried out more efficiently and effectively. The current state of the art uses the final title of the review to rank documents using BERT-based neural neural rankers. However, the final title is only formulated at the end of the review process, which makes this approach impractical as it relies on ex post facto information. At the time of screening, only a rough working title is available, with which the BERT-based ranker achieves is significantly worse than the final title. In this paper, we explore alternative sources of queries for screening prioritisation, such as the Boolean query used to retrieve the set of documents to be screened, and queries generated by instruction-based generative large language models such as ChatGPT and Alpaca. Our best approach is not only practical based on the information available at screening time, but is similar in effectiveness with the final title.Comment: Preprints for Accepted paper in SIGIR-AP-202

A linguistic failure analysis of classification of medical publications: A study on stemming vs lemmatization

Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) systems are essential to minimize the effort of the user during the search and retrieval of relevant documents for a specific information need. In this paper, we present a failure analysis based on terminological and linguistic aspects of a TAR system for systematic medical reviews. In particular, we analyze the results of the worst performing topics in terms of recall using the dataset of the CLEF 2017 eHealth task on TAR in Empirical Medicine.I sistemi TAR (Technology-Assisted Review) sono fondamentali per ridurre al minimo lo sforzo dell’utente che intende ricercare e recuperare i documenti rilevanti per uno specifico bisogno informativo. In questo articolo, presentiamo una failure analysis basata su aspetti terminologici e linguistici di un sistema TAR per le revisioni sistematiche in campo medico. In particolare, analizziamo i topic per i quali abbiamo ottenuto dei risultati peggiori in termini di recall utilizzando il dataset di CLEF 2017 eHealth task on TAR in Empirical Medicine