Tyler Wu, Sophia Ruser, Linda Kalunga, Renata Ivanek
{"title":"Active Learning Models to Screen Articles as Part of a Systematic Review of Literature on Digital Tools in Food Safety","authors":"Tyler Wu, Sophia Ruser, Linda Kalunga, Renata Ivanek","doi":"10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100488","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Systematic reviews in food safety research are vital but hindered by the amount of required human labor. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of semi-automated active learning models, as an alternative to manual screening, in screening articles by title and abstract for subsequent full-text review and inclusion in a systematic review of food safety literature. We used a dataset of 3,738 articles, which were previously manually screened in a systematic scoping review for studies about digital food safety tools, of which 214 articles were selected (labeled) via title-abstract screening for further full-text review. On this dataset, we compared three models: (i) Naive Bayes/Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), (ii) Logistic Regression/Doc2Vec, and (iii) Regression/TF-IDF under two scenarios: (1) screening an unlabeled dataset and (2) screening a labeled benchmark dataset. We show that screening with active learning models offers a significant improvement over manual (random) screening across all models. In the first scenario, given a stopping criterion of 5% of total records consecutively without having labeled an article relevant, the three models respectively achieve recalls of (mean ± standard deviation) 99.2 ± 0.8%, 97.9 ± 2.7%, and 98.8 ± 0.4% while having viewed only 62.6 ± 3.2%, 58.9 ± 2.9%, and 57.6 ± 3.2% of total records. In general, there was a tradeoff between recall and the number of articles that needed to be screened. In the second scenario, we observe that all models perform similarly overall, including similar Work Saved Over Sampling values at the 90% and 95% recall criteria, but models using the TF-IDF feature extractor typically outperform the model using Doc2Vec at finding relevant articles early in screening. In particular, all models outperformed random screening at any recall level. This study demonstrates the promise of incorporating active learning models to facilitate literature synthesis in digital food safety.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of food protection","volume":"88 5","pages":"Article 100488"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of food protection","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X25000407","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Systematic reviews in food safety research are vital but hindered by the amount of required human labor. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of semi-automated active learning models, as an alternative to manual screening, in screening articles by title and abstract for subsequent full-text review and inclusion in a systematic review of food safety literature. We used a dataset of 3,738 articles, which were previously manually screened in a systematic scoping review for studies about digital food safety tools, of which 214 articles were selected (labeled) via title-abstract screening for further full-text review. On this dataset, we compared three models: (i) Naive Bayes/Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), (ii) Logistic Regression/Doc2Vec, and (iii) Regression/TF-IDF under two scenarios: (1) screening an unlabeled dataset and (2) screening a labeled benchmark dataset. We show that screening with active learning models offers a significant improvement over manual (random) screening across all models. In the first scenario, given a stopping criterion of 5% of total records consecutively without having labeled an article relevant, the three models respectively achieve recalls of (mean ± standard deviation) 99.2 ± 0.8%, 97.9 ± 2.7%, and 98.8 ± 0.4% while having viewed only 62.6 ± 3.2%, 58.9 ± 2.9%, and 57.6 ± 3.2% of total records. In general, there was a tradeoff between recall and the number of articles that needed to be screened. In the second scenario, we observe that all models perform similarly overall, including similar Work Saved Over Sampling values at the 90% and 95% recall criteria, but models using the TF-IDF feature extractor typically outperform the model using Doc2Vec at finding relevant articles early in screening. In particular, all models outperformed random screening at any recall level. This study demonstrates the promise of incorporating active learning models to facilitate literature synthesis in digital food safety.
食品安全研究中的系统审查至关重要,但受到所需人力数量的阻碍。本研究的目的是评估半自动主动学习模型的有效性,作为人工筛选的替代方案,通过标题和摘要筛选文章,以便随后的全文审查和纳入食品安全文献的系统审查。我们使用了3738篇文章的数据集,这些文章之前在关于数字食品安全工具的研究的系统范围审查中进行了人工筛选,其中214篇文章通过标题-摘要筛选被选中(标记),以进行进一步的全文审查。在这个数据集上,我们比较了三种模型:(i)朴素贝叶斯/Term Frequency - Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), (ii) Logistic回归/Doc2Vec,以及(iii)回归/TF-IDF在两种情况下:1)筛选未标记的数据集,2)筛选标记的基准数据集。我们表明,与所有模型的手动(随机)筛选相比,主动学习模型的筛选提供了显著的改进。在第一种情况下,假设停止标准为连续记录总数的5%,而没有标记相关的文章,三种模型分别实现了(均值±标准差)99.2±0.8%,97.9±2.7%和98.8±0.4%,而仅查看了总记录的62.6±3.2%,58.9±2.9%和57.6±3.2%。一般来说,在召回和需要筛选的文章数量之间存在权衡。在第二种情况下,我们观察到所有模型的总体表现相似,包括在90%和95%召回标准下的相似的工作节省值,但是使用TF-IDF特征提取器的模型在筛选早期找到相关文章方面通常优于使用Doc2Vec的模型。特别是,所有模型在任何召回水平上都优于随机筛选。本研究展示了整合主动学习模型以促进数字食品安全文献合成的前景。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Food Protection® (JFP) is an international, monthly scientific journal in the English language published by the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP). JFP publishes research and review articles on all aspects of food protection and safety. Major emphases of JFP are placed on studies dealing with:
Tracking, detecting (including traditional, molecular, and real-time), inactivating, and controlling food-related hazards, including microorganisms (including antibiotic resistance), microbial (mycotoxins, seafood toxins) and non-microbial toxins (heavy metals, pesticides, veterinary drug residues, migrants from food packaging, and processing contaminants), allergens and pests (insects, rodents) in human food, pet food and animal feed throughout the food chain;
Microbiological food quality and traditional/novel methods to assay microbiological food quality;
Prevention of food-related hazards and food spoilage through food preservatives and thermal/non-thermal processes, including process validation;
Food fermentations and food-related probiotics;
Safe food handling practices during pre-harvest, harvest, post-harvest, distribution and consumption, including food safety education for retailers, foodservice, and consumers;
Risk assessments for food-related hazards;
Economic impact of food-related hazards, foodborne illness, food loss, food spoilage, and adulterated foods;
Food fraud, food authentication, food defense, and foodborne disease outbreak investigations.