主动学习模式筛选文章,作为食品安全数字工具文献系统审查的一部分。

IF 2.1 4区 农林科学 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Tyler Wu, Sophia Ruser, Linda Kalunga, Renata Ivanek
{"title":"主动学习模式筛选文章,作为食品安全数字工具文献系统审查的一部分。","authors":"Tyler Wu, Sophia Ruser, Linda Kalunga, Renata Ivanek","doi":"10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100488","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of food protection","volume":" ","pages":"100488"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of food protection\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"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://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100488\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of food protection","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100488","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

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Active learning models to screen articles as part of a systematic review of literature on digital tools in food safety.

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.

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
Journal of food protection
Journal of food protection 工程技术-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
296
审稿时长
2.5 months
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.
×
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