{"title":"Methods for using Bing's AI-powered search engine for data extraction for a systematic review","authors":"James Edward Hill, Catherine Harris, Andrew Clegg","doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Data extraction is a time-consuming and resource-intensive task in the systematic review process. Natural language processing (NLP) artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have the potential to automate data extraction saving time and resources, accelerating the review process, and enhancing the quality and reliability of extracted data. In this paper, we propose a method for using Bing AI and Microsoft Edge as a second reviewer to verify and enhance data items first extracted by a single human reviewer. We describe a worked example of the steps involved in instructing the Bing AI Chat tool to extract study characteristics as data items from a PDF document into a table so that they can be compared with data extracted manually. We show that this technique may provide an additional verification process for data extraction where there are limited resources available or for novice reviewers. However, it should not be seen as a replacement to already established and validated double independent data extraction methods without further evaluation and verification. Use of AI techniques for data extraction in systematic reviews should be transparently and accurately described in reports. Future research should focus on the accuracy, efficiency, completeness, and user experience of using Bing AI for data extraction compared with traditional methods using two or more reviewers independently.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"15 2","pages":"347-353"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1689","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1689","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Data extraction is a time-consuming and resource-intensive task in the systematic review process. Natural language processing (NLP) artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have the potential to automate data extraction saving time and resources, accelerating the review process, and enhancing the quality and reliability of extracted data. In this paper, we propose a method for using Bing AI and Microsoft Edge as a second reviewer to verify and enhance data items first extracted by a single human reviewer. We describe a worked example of the steps involved in instructing the Bing AI Chat tool to extract study characteristics as data items from a PDF document into a table so that they can be compared with data extracted manually. We show that this technique may provide an additional verification process for data extraction where there are limited resources available or for novice reviewers. However, it should not be seen as a replacement to already established and validated double independent data extraction methods without further evaluation and verification. Use of AI techniques for data extraction in systematic reviews should be transparently and accurately described in reports. Future research should focus on the accuracy, efficiency, completeness, and user experience of using Bing AI for data extraction compared with traditional methods using two or more reviewers independently.
在系统综述过程中,数据提取是一项耗时耗力的工作。自然语言处理(NLP)人工智能(AI)技术有可能实现数据提取自动化,从而节省时间和资源,加快审稿进程,并提高提取数据的质量和可靠性。在本文中,我们提出了一种使用必应人工智能和 Microsoft Edge 作为第二审核员的方法,以验证和增强由单个人工审核员首次提取的数据项。我们举例说明了指导必应人工智能聊天工具将研究特征作为数据项从 PDF 文档中提取到表格中的步骤,以便与人工提取的数据进行比较。我们表明,在资源有限的情况下或对于新手审稿人来说,这种技术可以为数据提取提供额外的验证过程。但是,在没有进一步评估和验证的情况下,不应将其视为已经建立和验证的双重独立数据提取方法的替代品。在系统综述中使用人工智能技术进行数据提取时,应在报告中进行透明、准确的描述。未来的研究应侧重于使用必应人工智能进行数据提取的准确性、效率、完整性和用户体验,并与使用两名或两名以上审稿人独立进行数据提取的传统方法进行比较。
期刊介绍:
Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines.
Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines.
By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.