Automated tools for systematic review screening methods: an application of machine learning for sexual orientation and gender identity measurement in health research.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Ashleigh J Rich, Emma L McGorray, Carrie Baldwin-SoRelle, Michelle Cawley, Karen Grigg, Lauren B Beach, Gregory Phillips, Tonia Poteat
{"title":"Automated tools for systematic review screening methods: an application of machine learning for sexual orientation and gender identity measurement in health research.","authors":"Ashleigh J Rich, Emma L McGorray, Carrie Baldwin-SoRelle, Michelle Cawley, Karen Grigg, Lauren B Beach, Gregory Phillips, Tonia Poteat","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2025.1860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations experience health disparities compared to heterosexual and cisgender populations. The development of accurate, comprehensive sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) measures is fundamental to quantify and address SGM disparities, which first requires identifying SOGI-related research. As part of a larger project reviewing and synthesizing how SOGI has been assessed within the health literature, we provide an example of the application of automated tools for systematic reviews to the area of SOGI measurement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In collaboration with research librarians, a three-phase approach was used to prioritize screening for a set of 11,441 SOGI measurement studies published since 2012. In Phase 1, search results were stratified into two groups (title with vs. without measurement-related terms); titles with measurement-related terms were manually screened. In Phase 2, supervised clustering using DoCTER software was used to sort the remaining studies based on relevance. In Phase 3, supervised machine learning using DoCTER was used to further identify which studies deemed low relevance in Phase 2 should be prioritized for manual screening.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1,607 studies were identified in Phase 1. Across Phases 2 and 3, the research team excluded 5,056 of the remaining 9,834 studies using DoCTER. In manual review, the percentage of relevant studies in results screened manually was low, ranging from 0.1 to 7.8 percent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Automated tools used in collaboration with research librarians have the potential to save hundreds of hours of human labor in large-scale systematic reviews of SGM health research.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"113 1","pages":"31-38"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11835039/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2025.1860","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations experience health disparities compared to heterosexual and cisgender populations. The development of accurate, comprehensive sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) measures is fundamental to quantify and address SGM disparities, which first requires identifying SOGI-related research. As part of a larger project reviewing and synthesizing how SOGI has been assessed within the health literature, we provide an example of the application of automated tools for systematic reviews to the area of SOGI measurement.

Methods: In collaboration with research librarians, a three-phase approach was used to prioritize screening for a set of 11,441 SOGI measurement studies published since 2012. In Phase 1, search results were stratified into two groups (title with vs. without measurement-related terms); titles with measurement-related terms were manually screened. In Phase 2, supervised clustering using DoCTER software was used to sort the remaining studies based on relevance. In Phase 3, supervised machine learning using DoCTER was used to further identify which studies deemed low relevance in Phase 2 should be prioritized for manual screening.

Results: 1,607 studies were identified in Phase 1. Across Phases 2 and 3, the research team excluded 5,056 of the remaining 9,834 studies using DoCTER. In manual review, the percentage of relevant studies in results screened manually was low, ranging from 0.1 to 7.8 percent.

Conclusions: Automated tools used in collaboration with research librarians have the potential to save hundreds of hours of human labor in large-scale systematic reviews of SGM health research.

用于系统审查筛选方法的自动化工具:机器学习在健康研究中的性取向和性别认同测量应用。
目的:与异性恋和顺性人群相比,性少数和性别少数群体(SGM)人群存在健康差异。制定准确、全面的性取向和性别认同(SOGI)指标是量化和解决性取向和性别认同差异的基础,这首先需要确定与SOGI相关的研究。作为审查和综合如何在健康文献中评估SOGI的更大项目的一部分,我们提供了一个应用自动化工具对SOGI测量领域进行系统审查的示例。方法:与研究型图书馆员合作,采用三阶段方法对2012年以来发表的11,441项SOGI测量研究进行优先筛选。在第一阶段,搜索结果被分成两组(标题中有与测量相关的术语和没有);带有测量相关术语的标题是手动筛选的。在第二阶段,使用DoCTER软件进行监督聚类,根据相关性对剩余的研究进行分类。在第3阶段,使用DoCTER进行监督机器学习,进一步确定哪些研究在第2阶段被认为相关性较低,应该优先进行人工筛选。结果:1期共纳入1607项研究。在第二和第三阶段,研究小组使用DoCTER排除了剩余的9834项研究中的5056项。在人工审查中,人工筛选的结果中相关研究的百分比很低,从0.1%到7.8%不等。结论:与研究图书馆员合作使用的自动化工具有可能在SGM健康研究的大规模系统评价中节省数百小时的人力劳动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信