IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/w6qbg.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Active learning for screening prioritization in systematic reviews - A simulation study

Author

Listed:
  • Ferdinands, Gerbrich
  • Schram, Raoul
  • de Bruin, Jonathan
  • Bagheri, Ayoub
  • Oberski, Daniel Leonard

    (Tilburg University)

  • Tummers, Lars

    (Utrecht University)

  • van de Schoot, Rens

Abstract

Background Conducting a systematic review requires great screening effort. Various tools have been proposed to speed up the process of screening thousands of titles and abstracts by engaging in active learning. In such tools, the reviewer interacts with machine learning software to identify relevant publications as early as possible. To gain a comprehensive understanding of active learning models for reducing workload in systematic reviews, the current study provides a methodical overview of such models. Active learning models were evaluated across four different classification techniques (naive Bayes, logistic regression, support vector machines, and random forest) and two different feature extraction strategies (TF-IDF and doc2vec). Moreover, models were evaluated across six systematic review datasets from various research areas to assess generalizability of active learning models across different research contexts. Methods Performance of the models were assessed by conducting simulations on six systematic review datasets. We defined desirable model performance as maximizing recall while minimizing the number of publications needed to screen. Model performance was evaluated by recall curves, WSS@95, RRF@10, and ATD. Results Within all datasets, the model performance exceeded screening at random order to a great degree. The models reduced the number of publications needed to screen by 91.7% to 63.9%. Conclusions Active learning models for screening prioritization show great potential in reducing the workload in systematic reviews. Overall, the Naive Bayes + TF-IDF model performed the best.

Suggested Citation

  • Ferdinands, Gerbrich & Schram, Raoul & de Bruin, Jonathan & Bagheri, Ayoub & Oberski, Daniel Leonard & Tummers, Lars & van de Schoot, Rens, 2020. "Active learning for screening prioritization in systematic reviews - A simulation study," OSF Preprints w6qbg, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:w6qbg
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/w6qbg
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5f622ab52c735502f6e9e979/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/w6qbg?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosanna Nagtegaal & Lars Tummers & Mirko Noordegraaf & Victor Bekkers, 2019. "Nudging healthcare professionals towards evidence-based medicine: A systematic scoping review," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(2).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bo Liu & Wei Song & Zhan Meng & Xinwei Liu, 2023. "Review of Land Use Change Detection—A Method Combining Machine Learning and Bibliometric Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-26, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nwafor, Onyi & Singh, Rahul & Collier, Cassie & DeLeon, Dereck & Osborne, Jim & DeYoung, Jon, 2021. "Effectiveness of nudges as a tool to promote adherence to guidelines in healthcare and their organizational implications: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:w6qbg. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.