Zheng Fang, Miguel Arana-Catania, Felix-Anselm van Lier, Juliana Outes Velarde, Harry Bregazzi, Mara Airoldi, Eleanor Carter, Rob Procter
{"title":"SyROCCo: Enhancing Systematic Reviews using Machine Learning","authors":"Zheng Fang, Miguel Arana-Catania, Felix-Anselm van Lier, Juliana Outes Velarde, Harry Bregazzi, Mara Airoldi, Eleanor Carter, Rob Procter","doi":"arxiv-2406.16527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The sheer number of research outputs published every year makes systematic\nreviewing increasingly time- and resource-intensive. This paper explores the\nuse of machine learning techniques to help navigate the systematic review\nprocess. ML has previously been used to reliably 'screen' articles for review -\nthat is, identify relevant articles based on reviewers' inclusion criteria. The\napplication of ML techniques to subsequent stages of a review, however, such as\ndata extraction and evidence mapping, is in its infancy. We therefore set out\nto develop a series of tools that would assist in the profiling and analysis of\n1,952 publications on the theme of 'outcomes-based contracting'. Tools were\ndeveloped for the following tasks: assign publications into 'policy area'\ncategories; identify and extract key information for evidence mapping, such as\norganisations, laws, and geographical information; connect the evidence base to\nan existing dataset on the same topic; and identify subgroups of articles that\nmay share thematic content. An interactive tool using these techniques and a\npublic dataset with their outputs have been released. Our results demonstrate\nthe utility of ML techniques to enhance evidence accessibility and analysis\nwithin the systematic review processes. These efforts show promise in\npotentially yielding substantial efficiencies for future systematic reviewing\nand for broadening their analytical scope. Our work suggests that there may be\nimplications for the ease with which policymakers and practitioners can access\nevidence. While ML techniques seem poised to play a significant role in\nbridging the gap between research and policy by offering innovative ways of\ngathering, accessing, and analysing data from systematic reviews, we also\nhighlight their current limitations and the need to exercise caution in their\napplication, particularly given the potential for errors and biases.","PeriodicalId":501285,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2406.16527","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The sheer number of research outputs published every year makes systematic
reviewing increasingly time- and resource-intensive. This paper explores the
use of machine learning techniques to help navigate the systematic review
process. ML has previously been used to reliably 'screen' articles for review -
that is, identify relevant articles based on reviewers' inclusion criteria. The
application of ML techniques to subsequent stages of a review, however, such as
data extraction and evidence mapping, is in its infancy. We therefore set out
to develop a series of tools that would assist in the profiling and analysis of
1,952 publications on the theme of 'outcomes-based contracting'. Tools were
developed for the following tasks: assign publications into 'policy area'
categories; identify and extract key information for evidence mapping, such as
organisations, laws, and geographical information; connect the evidence base to
an existing dataset on the same topic; and identify subgroups of articles that
may share thematic content. An interactive tool using these techniques and a
public dataset with their outputs have been released. Our results demonstrate
the utility of ML techniques to enhance evidence accessibility and analysis
within the systematic review processes. These efforts show promise in
potentially yielding substantial efficiencies for future systematic reviewing
and for broadening their analytical scope. Our work suggests that there may be
implications for the ease with which policymakers and practitioners can access
evidence. While ML techniques seem poised to play a significant role in
bridging the gap between research and policy by offering innovative ways of
gathering, accessing, and analysing data from systematic reviews, we also
highlight their current limitations and the need to exercise caution in their
application, particularly given the potential for errors and biases.