系统性综述的机器学习方法:快速范围界定综述》(Machine Learning Methods for Systematic Reviews:: A Rapid Scoping Review.

Delaware journal of public health Pub Date : 2023-11-30 eCollection Date: 2023-11-01 DOI:10.32481/djph.2023.11.008
Stephanie Roth, Alex Wermer-Colan
{"title":"系统性综述的机器学习方法:快速范围界定综述》(Machine Learning Methods for Systematic Reviews:: A Rapid Scoping Review.","authors":"Stephanie Roth, Alex Wermer-Colan","doi":"10.32481/djph.2023.11.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>At the forefront of machine learning research since its inception has been natural language processing, also known as text mining, referring to a wide range of statistical processes for analyzing textual data and retrieving information. In medical fields, text mining has made valuable contributions in unexpected ways, not least by synthesizing data from disparate biomedical studies. This rapid scoping review examines how machine learning methods for text mining can be implemented at the intersection of these disparate fields to improve the workflow and process of conducting systematic reviews in medical research and related academic disciplines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary research question that this investigation asked, \"what impact does the use of machine learning have on the methods used by systematic review teams to carry out the systematic review process, such as the precision of search strategies, unbiased article selection or data abstraction and/or analysis for systematic reviews and other comprehensive review types of similar methodology?\" A literature search was conducted by a medical librarian utilizing multiple databases, a grey literature search and handsearching of the literature. The search was completed on December 4, 2020. Handsearching was done on an ongoing basis with an end date of April 14, 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 23,190 studies after duplicates were removed. As a result, 117 studies (1.70%) met eligibility criteria for inclusion in this rapid scoping review.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are several techniques and/or types of machine learning methods in development or that have already been fully developed to assist with the systematic review stages. Combined with human intelligence, these machine learning methods and tools provide promise for making the systematic review process more efficient, saving valuable time for systematic review authors, and increasing the speed in which evidence can be created and placed in the hands of decision makers and the public.</p>","PeriodicalId":72774,"journal":{"name":"Delaware journal of public health","volume":"9 4","pages":"40-47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10759980/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Machine Learning Methods for Systematic Reviews:: A Rapid Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie Roth, Alex Wermer-Colan\",\"doi\":\"10.32481/djph.2023.11.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>At the forefront of machine learning research since its inception has been natural language processing, also known as text mining, referring to a wide range of statistical processes for analyzing textual data and retrieving information. In medical fields, text mining has made valuable contributions in unexpected ways, not least by synthesizing data from disparate biomedical studies. This rapid scoping review examines how machine learning methods for text mining can be implemented at the intersection of these disparate fields to improve the workflow and process of conducting systematic reviews in medical research and related academic disciplines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary research question that this investigation asked, \\\"what impact does the use of machine learning have on the methods used by systematic review teams to carry out the systematic review process, such as the precision of search strategies, unbiased article selection or data abstraction and/or analysis for systematic reviews and other comprehensive review types of similar methodology?\\\" A literature search was conducted by a medical librarian utilizing multiple databases, a grey literature search and handsearching of the literature. The search was completed on December 4, 2020. Handsearching was done on an ongoing basis with an end date of April 14, 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 23,190 studies after duplicates were removed. As a result, 117 studies (1.70%) met eligibility criteria for inclusion in this rapid scoping review.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are several techniques and/or types of machine learning methods in development or that have already been fully developed to assist with the systematic review stages. Combined with human intelligence, these machine learning methods and tools provide promise for making the systematic review process more efficient, saving valuable time for systematic review authors, and increasing the speed in which evidence can be created and placed in the hands of decision makers and the public.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72774,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Delaware journal of public health\",\"volume\":\"9 4\",\"pages\":\"40-47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10759980/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Delaware journal of public health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32481/djph.2023.11.008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Delaware journal of public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32481/djph.2023.11.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:自然语言处理(又称文本挖掘)自问世以来一直处于机器学习研究的最前沿,它指的是用于分析文本数据和检索信息的各种统计过程。在医学领域,文本挖掘以意想不到的方式做出了宝贵的贡献,尤其是综合了来自不同生物医学研究的数据。本快速范围界定综述探讨了如何在这些不同领域的交叉点实施文本挖掘的机器学习方法,以改进医学研究和相关学科开展系统综述的工作流程和过程:本次调查的主要研究问题是:"机器学习的使用对系统性综述团队开展系统性综述过程所使用的方法,如检索策略的精确性、无偏见的文章选择或系统性综述和其他类似方法的综合综述类型的数据抽取和/或分析有什么影响?医学图书管理员利用多个数据库、灰色文献检索和手工检索文献进行了文献检索。检索于 2020 年 12 月 4 日完成。手工检索持续进行,结束日期为 2023 年 4 月 14 日:结果:在剔除重复内容后,共检索到 23190 项研究。因此,有 117 项研究(1.70%)符合纳入本次快速范围界定综述的资格标准:有几种技术和/或类型的机器学习方法正在开发中或已经完全开发出来,可用于协助系统综述阶段的工作。这些机器学习方法和工具与人类智能相结合,有望提高系统综述过程的效率,为系统综述作者节省宝贵的时间,并加快证据的创建速度,将证据提供给决策者和公众。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Machine Learning Methods for Systematic Reviews:: A Rapid Scoping Review.

Objective: At the forefront of machine learning research since its inception has been natural language processing, also known as text mining, referring to a wide range of statistical processes for analyzing textual data and retrieving information. In medical fields, text mining has made valuable contributions in unexpected ways, not least by synthesizing data from disparate biomedical studies. This rapid scoping review examines how machine learning methods for text mining can be implemented at the intersection of these disparate fields to improve the workflow and process of conducting systematic reviews in medical research and related academic disciplines.

Methods: The primary research question that this investigation asked, "what impact does the use of machine learning have on the methods used by systematic review teams to carry out the systematic review process, such as the precision of search strategies, unbiased article selection or data abstraction and/or analysis for systematic reviews and other comprehensive review types of similar methodology?" A literature search was conducted by a medical librarian utilizing multiple databases, a grey literature search and handsearching of the literature. The search was completed on December 4, 2020. Handsearching was done on an ongoing basis with an end date of April 14, 2023.

Results: The search yielded 23,190 studies after duplicates were removed. As a result, 117 studies (1.70%) met eligibility criteria for inclusion in this rapid scoping review.

Conclusions: There are several techniques and/or types of machine learning methods in development or that have already been fully developed to assist with the systematic review stages. Combined with human intelligence, these machine learning methods and tools provide promise for making the systematic review process more efficient, saving valuable time for systematic review authors, and increasing the speed in which evidence can be created and placed in the hands of decision makers and the public.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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