Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: A living systematic review [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Background: The reliable and usable (semi)automation of data extraction can support the field of systematic review by reducing the workload required to gather information about the conduct and results of the included studies. This living systematic review examines published approaches for data extraction from reports of clinical studies. Methods: We systematically and continually search MEDLINE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), arXiv, and the dblp computer science bibliography databases. Full text screening and data extraction are conducted within an open-source living systematic review application created for the purpose of this review. This iteration of the living review includes publications up to a cut-off date of 22 April 2020. Results: In total, 53 publications are included in this version of our review. Of these, 41 (77%) of the publications addressed extraction of data from abstracts, while 14 (26%) used full texts. A total of 48 (90%) publications developed and evaluated classifiers that used randomised controlled trials as the main target texts. Over 30 entities were extracted, with PICOs (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) being the most frequently extracted. A description of their datasets was provided by 49 publications (94%), but only seven (13%) made the data publicly available. Code was made available by 10 (19%) publications, and five (9%) implemented publicly available tools. Conclusions: This living systematic review presents an overview of (semi)automated data-extraction literature of interest to different types of systematic review. We identified a broad evidence base of publications describing data extraction for interventional reviews and a small number of publications extracting epidemiological or diagnostic accuracy data. The lack of publicly available gold-standard data for evaluation, and lack of application thereof, makes it difficult to draw conclusions on which is the best-performing system for each data extraction target. With this living review we aim to review the literature continually

Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review [version 2; peer review: 3 approved]

Background: The reliable and usable (semi)automation of data extraction can support the field of systematic review by reducing the workload required to gather information about the conduct and results of the included studies. This living systematic review examines published approaches for data extraction from reports of clinical studies. Methods: We systematically and continually search PubMed, ACL Anthology, arXiv, OpenAlex via EPPI-Reviewer, and the dblp computer science bibliography. Full text screening and data extraction are conducted within an open-source living systematic review application created for the purpose of this review. This living review update includes publications up to December 2022 and OpenAlex content up to March 2023. Results: 76 publications are included in this review. Of these, 64 (84%) of the publications addressed extraction of data from abstracts, while 19 (25%) used full texts. A total of 71 (93%) publications developed classifiers for randomised controlled trials. Over 30 entities were extracted, with PICOs (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) being the most frequently extracted. Data are available from 25 (33%), and code from 30 (39%) publications. Six (8%) implemented publicly available tools Conclusions: This living systematic review presents an overview of (semi)automated data-extraction literature of interest to different types of literature review. We identified a broad evidence base of publications describing data extraction for interventional reviews and a small number of publications extracting epidemiological or diagnostic accuracy data. Between review updates, trends for sharing data and code increased strongly: in the base-review, data and code were available for 13 and 19% respectively, these numbers increased to 78 and 87% within the 23 new publications. Compared with the base-review, we observed another research trend, away from straightforward data extraction and towards additionally extracting relations between entities or automatic text summarisation. With this living review we aim to review the literature continually

Doctor of Philosophy

dissertationMedical knowledge learned in medical school can become quickly outdated given the tremendous growth of the biomedical literature. It is the responsibility of medical practitioners to continuously update their knowledge with recent, best available clinical evidence to make informed decisions about patient care. However, clinicians often have little time to spend on reading the primary literature even within their narrow specialty. As a result, they often rely on systematic evidence reviews developed by medical experts to fulfill their information needs. At the present, systematic reviews of clinical research are manually created and updated, which is expensive, slow, and unable to keep up with the rapidly growing pace of medical literature. This dissertation research aims to enhance the traditional systematic review development process using computer-aided solutions. The first study investigates query expansion and scientific quality ranking approaches to enhance literature search on clinical guideline topics. The study showed that unsupervised methods can improve retrieval performance of a popular biomedical search engine (PubMed). The proposed methods improve the comprehensiveness of literature search and increase the ratio of finding relevant studies with reduced screening effort. The second and third studies aim to enhance the traditional manual data extraction process. The second study developed a framework to extract and classify texts from PDF reports. This study demonstrated that a rule-based multipass sieve approach is more effective than a machine-learning approach in categorizing document-level structures and iv that classifying and filtering publication metadata and semistructured texts enhances the performance of an information extraction system. The proposed method could serve as a document processing step in any text mining research on PDF documents. The third study proposed a solution for the computer-aided data extraction by recommending relevant sentences and key phrases extracted from publication reports. This study demonstrated that using a machine-learning classifier to prioritize sentences for specific data elements performs equally or better than an abstract screening approach, and might save time and reduce errors in the full-text screening process. In summary, this dissertation showed that there are promising opportunities for technology enhancement to assist in the development of systematic reviews. In this modern age when computing resources are getting cheaper and more powerful, the failure to apply computer technologies to assist and optimize the manual processes is a lost opportunity to improve the timeliness of systematic reviews. This research provides methodologies and tests hypotheses, which can serve as the basis for further large-scale software engineering projects aimed at fully realizing the prospect of computer-aided systematic reviews

Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable?

Background In recognising the potential value of theory in understanding how interventions work comes a challenge – how to make identification of theory less haphazard? Objectives To explore the feasibility of systematic identification of theory. Method We searched PubMed for published reviews (1998–2012) that had explicitly sought to identify theory. Systematic searching may be characterised by a structured question, methodological filters and an itemised search procedure. We constructed a template (BeHEMoTh – Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) for use when systematically identifying theory. The authors tested the template within two systematic reviews. Results Of 34 systematic reviews, only 12 reviews (35%) reported a method for identifying theory. Nineteen did not specify how they identified studies containing theory. Data were unavailable for three reviews. Candidate terms include concept(s)/conceptual, framework(s), model(s), and theory/theories/theoretical. Information professionals must overcome inadequate reporting and the use of theory out of context. The review team faces an additional concern in lack of ‘theory fidelity’. Conclusions Based on experience with two systematic reviews, the BeHEMoTh template and procedure offers a feasible and useful approach for identification of theory. Applications include realist synthesis, framework synthesis or review of complex interventions. The procedure requires rigorous evaluation

A deep learning classifier for sentence classification in biomedical and computer science abstracts

The automatic classification of abstract sentences into its main elements (background, objectives, methods, results, conclusions) is a key tool to support scientific database querying, to summarize relevant literature works and to assist in the writing of new abstracts. In this paper, we propose a novel deep learning approach based on a convolutional layer and a bidirectional gated recurrent unit to classify sentences of abstracts. First, the proposed neural network was tested on a publicly available repository containing 20 thousand abstracts from the biomedical domain. Competitive results were achieved, with weight-averaged Precision, Recall and F1-score values around 91%, and an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 99%, which are higher when compared to a state-of-the-art neural network. Then, a crowdsourcing approach using gamification was adopted to create a new comprehensive set of 4111 classified sentences from the computer science domain, focused on social media abstracts. The results of applying the same deep learning modeling technique trained with 3287 (80%) of the available sentences were below the ones obtained for the larger biomedical dataset, with weight-averaged Precision, Recall and F1-score values between 73 and 76%, and an AUC of 91%. Considering the dataset dimension as a likely important factor for such performance decrease, a data augmentation approach was further applied. This involved the use of text mining to translate sentences of the computer science abstract corpus while retaining the same meaning. Such approach resulted in slight improvements (around 2 percentage points) for the weight-averaged Recall and F1-score values.This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) within the Project Scope: UID/CEC/00319/2019