An open-source integrated framework for the automation of citation collection and screening in systematic reviews
February 21, 2022 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Angelo D'Ambrosio, Hajo Grundmann, Tjibbe Donker
arXiv ID
2202.10033
Category
cs.DL: Digital Libraries
Cross-listed
cs.IR,
stat.AP
Citations
1
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
The exponential growth of scientific production makes secondary literature abridgements increasingly demanding. We introduce a new open-source framework for systematic reviews that significantly reduces time and workload for collecting and screening scientific literature. The framework provides three main tools: 1) an automatic citation search engine and manager that collects records from multiple online sources with a unified query syntax, 2) a Bayesian, active machine learning, citation screening tool based on iterative human-machine interaction to increase predictive accuracy and, 3) a semi-automatic, data-driven query generator to create new search queries from existing citation data sets. To evaluate the automatic screener's performance, we estimated the median posterior sensitivity and efficiency [90% Credible Intervals] using Bayesian simulation to predict the distribution of undetected potentially relevant records. Tested on an example topic, the framework collected 17,755 unique records through the citation manager; 766 records required human evaluation while the rest were excluded by the automatic classifier; the theoretical efficiency was 95.6% [95.3%, 95.7%] with a sensitivity of 100% [93.5%, 100%]. A new search query was generated from the labelled dataset, and 82,579 additional records were collected; only 567 records required human review after automatic screening, and six additional positive matches were found. The overall expected sensitivity decreased to 97.3% [73.8%, 100%] while the efficiency increased to 98.6% [98.2%, 98.7%]. The framework can significantly reduce the workload required to conduct large literature reviews by simplifying citation collection and screening while demonstrating exceptional sensitivity. Such a tool can improve the standardization and repeatability of systematic reviews.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Digital Libraries
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Measuring academic influence: Not all citations are equal
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
The Open Access Advantage Considering Citation, Article Usage and Social Media Attention
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
A Bibliometric Review of Large Language Models Research from 2017 to 2023
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
On the Performance of Hybrid Search Strategies for Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
A Systematic Identification and Analysis of Scientists on Twitter
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted