Evidence-based health care (EBHC) is an important practice of medicine which attempts to provide systematic scientific evidence to answer clinical questions. In this context, Epistemonikos (www.epistemonikos.org) is one of the first and most important online systems in the field, providing an interface that supports users on searching and filtering scientific articles for practicing EBHC. The system nowadays requires a large amount of expert human effort, where close to 500 physicians manually curate articles to be utilized in the platform. In order to scale up the large and continuous amount of data to keep the system updated, we introduce EpistAid, an interactive intelligent interface which supports clinicians in the process of curating documents for Epistemonikos within lists of papers called evidence matrices. We introduce the characteristics, design and algorithms of our solution, as well as a prototype implementation and a case study to show how our solution addresses the information overload problem in this area.
 Context: Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are an important component to identify and aggregate research evidence from different empirical studies. Despite its relevance, most of the process is conducted manually, implying additional effort when the Selection Review task is performed and leading to reading all studies under analysis more than once. Objective: We propose an approach based on Visual Text Mining (VTM) techniques to assist the Selection Review task in SLR. It is implemented into a VTM tool (Revis), which is freely available for use. Method: We have selected and implemented appropriate visualization techniques into our approach and validated and demonstrated its usefulness in performing real SLRs. Results: The results have shown that employment of VTM techniques can successfully assist in the Selection Review task, speeding up the entire SLR process in comparison to the conventional approach. Conclusion: VTM techniques are valuable tools to be used in the context of selecting studies in the SLR process, prone to speed up some stages of SLRs. Objectives: To investigate whether (1) machine learning classifiers can help identify nonrandomized studies eligible for full-text screening by systematic reviewers; (2) classifier performance varies with optimization; and (3) the number of citations to screen can be reduced. Methods: We used an open-source, data-mining suite to process and classify biomedical citations that point to mostly nonrandomized studies from 2 systematic reviews. We built training and test sets for citation portions and compared classifier performance by considering the value of indexing, various feature sets, and optimization. We conducted our experiments in 2 phases. The design of phase I with no optimization was: 4 classifiersx3 feature setsx3 citation portions. Classifiers included k-nearest neighbor, naive Bayes, complement naive Bayes, and evolutionary support vector machine. Feature sets included bag of words, and 2- and 3-term n-grams. Citation portions included titles, titles and abstracts, and full citations with metadata. Phase II with optimization involved a subset of the classifiers, as well as features extracted from full citations, and full citations with overweighted titles. We optimized features and classifier parameters by manually setting information gain thresholds outside of a process for iterative grid optimization with 10-fold cross-validations. We independently tested models on data reserved for that purpose and statistically compared classifier performance on 2 types of feature sets. We estimated the number of citations needed to screen by reviewers during a second pass through a reduced set of citations. Results: In phase I, the evolutionary support vector machine returned the best recall for bag of words extracted from full citations; the best classifier with respect to overall performance was k-nearest neighbor. No classifier attained good enough recall for this task without optimization. In phase II, we boosted performance with optimization for evolutionary support vector machine and complement naive Bayes classifiers. Generalization performance was better for the latter in the independent tests. For evolutionary support vector machine and complement naive Bayes classifiers, the initial retrieval set was reduced by 46 and 35 , respectively. Conclusions: Machine learning classifiers can help identify nonrandomized studies eligible for full-text screening by systematic reviewers. Optimization can markedly improve performance of classifiers. However, generalizability varies with the classifier. The number of citations to screen during a second independent pass through the citations can be substantially reduced. Background: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs)are an important component to identify and aggregate research evidence from different empirical studies. One of the activities associated with the SLR process is the selection of primary studies. The process used to select primary studies can be arduous, particularly when the researcher faces large volumes of primary studies. Aim: An experiment was conducted as a pilot test to compare the performance and effectiveness of graduate students in selecting primary studies manually and using visual text mining (VTM) techniques. This paper describes a replication study. Method: The same experimental design and materials of the previous experiment were used in the current experiment. Result: The previous experiment revealed that VTM techniques can speed up the selection of primary studies and increase the number of studies correctly included excluded (effectiveness). The results of the replication confirmed that studies are more rapidly selected using VTM. We observed that the level of experience in researching has a direct relationship with the effectiveness. Conclusion: VTM techniques have proven valuable in the selection of primary studies. The active learning (AL) framework is an increasingly popular strategy for reducing the amount of human labeling effort required to induce a predictive model. Most work in AL has assumed that a single, infallible oracle provides labels requested by the learner at a fixed cost. However, real-world applications suitable for AL often include multiple domain experts who provide labels of varying cost and quality. We explore this multiple expert active learning (MEAL) scenario and develop a novel algorithm for instance allocation that exploits the meta-cognitive abilities of novice (cheap) experts in order to make the best use of the experienced (expensive) annotators. We demonstrate that this strategy outperforms strong baseline approaches to MEAL on both a sentiment analysis dataset and two datasets from our motivating application of biomedical citation screening. Furthermore, we provide evidence that novice labelers are often aware of which instances they are likely to mislabel.   Background Identifying relevant studies for inclusion in a systematic review (i.e. screening) is a complex, laborious and expensive task. Recently, a number of studies has shown that the use of machine learning and text mining methods to automatically identify relevant studies has the potential to drastically decrease the workload involved in the screening phase. The vast majority of these machine learning methods exploit the same underlying principle, i.e. a study is modelled as a bag-of-words (BOW). This paper presents an interactive hybrid recommendation system that generates item predictions from multiple social and semantic web resources, such as Wikipedia, Facebook, and Twitter. The system employs hybrid techniques from traditional recommender system literature, in addition to a novel interactive interface which serves to explain the recommendation process and elicit preferences from the end user. We present an evaluation that compares different interactive and non-interactive hybrid strategies for computing recommendations across diverse social and semantic web APIs. Results of the study indicate that explanation and interaction with a visual representation of the hybrid system increase user satisfaction and relevance of predicted content. Abstract Objective Machine learning systems can be an aid to experts performing systematic reviews (SRs) by automatically ranking journal articles for work-prioritization. This work investigates whether a topic-specific automated document ranking system for SRs can be improved using a hybrid approach, combining topic-specific training data with data from other SR topics. Design A test collection was built using annotated reference files from 24 systematic drug class reviews. A support vector machine learning algorithm was evaluated with cross-validation, using seven different fractions of topic-specific training data in combination with samples from the other 23 topics. This approach was compared to both a baseline system, which used only topic-specific training data, and to a system using only the nontopic data sampled from the remaining topics. Measurements Mean area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC) was used as the measure of comparison. Results On average, the hybrid system improved mean AUC over the baseline system by 20 , when topic-specific training data were scarce. The system performed significantly better than the baseline system at all levels of topic-specific training data. In addition, the system performed better than the nontopic system at all but the two smallest fractions of topic specific training data, and no worse than the nontopic system with these smallest amounts of topic specific training data. Conclusions Automated literature prioritization could be helpful in assisting experts to organize their time when performing systematic reviews. Future work will focus on extending the algorithm to use additional sources of topic-specific data, and on embedding the algorithm in an interactive system available to systematic reviewers during the literature review process.   Background Systematic reviews address a specific clinical question by unbiasedly assessing and analyzing the pertinent literature. Citation screening is a time-consuming and critical step in systematic reviews. Typically, reviewers must evaluate thousands of citations to identify articles eligible for a given review. We explore the application of machine learning techniques to semi-automate citation screening, thereby reducing the reviewers' workload. Objectives: Evidence-based medicine depends on the timely synthesis of research findings. An important source of synthesized evidence resides in systematic reviews. However, a bottleneck in review production involves dual screening of citations with titles and abstracts to find eligible studies. For this research, we tested the effect of various kinds of textual information (features) on performance of a machine learning classifier. Based on our findings, we propose an automated system to reduce screeing burden, as well as offer quality assurance. Methods: We built a database of citations from 5 systematic reviews that varied with respect to domain, topic, and sponsor. Consensus judgments regarding eligibility were inferred from published reports. We extracted 5 feature sets from citations: alphabetic, alphanumeric +, indexing, features mapped to concepts in systematic reviews, and topic models. To simulate a two-person team, we divided the data into random halves. We optimized the parameters of a Bayesian classifier, then trained and tested models on alternate data halves. Overall, we conducted 50 independent tests. Results: All tests of summary performance (mean F3) surpassed the corresponding baseline, P<0.0001. The ranks for mean F3, precision, and classification error were statistically different across feature sets averaged over reviews; P-values for Friedman's test were .045, .002, and .002, respectively. Differences in ranks for mean recall were not statistically significant. Alphanumeric+ features were associated with best performance; mean reduction in screening burden for this feature type ranged from 88 to 98 for the second pass through citations and from 38 to 48 overall. Conclusions: A computer-assisted, decision support system based on our methods could substantially reduce the burden of screening citations for systematic review teams and solo reviewers. Additionally, such a system could deliver quality assurance both by confirming concordant decisions and by naming studies associated with discordant decisions for further consideration. © 2014 Background Citation screening is time consuming and inefficient. We sought to evaluate the performance of Abstrackr, a semi-automated online tool for predictive title and abstract screening. Active learning (AL) is an increasingly popular strategy for mitigating the amount of labeled data required to train classifiers, thereby reducing annotator effort. We describe a real-world, deployed application of AL to the problem of biomedical citation screening for systematic reviews at the Tufts Medical Center's Evidence-based Practice Center. We propose a novel active learning strategy that exploits a priori domain knowledge provided by the expert (specifically, labeled features)and extend this model via a Linear Programming algorithm for situations where the expert can provide ranked labeled features. Our methods outperform existing AL strategies on three real-world systematic review datasets. We argue that evaluation must be specific to the scenario under consideration. To this end, we propose a new evaluation framework for finite-pool scenarios, wherein the primary aim is to label a fixed set of examples rather than to simply induce a good predictive model. We use a method from medical decision theory for eliciting the relative costs of false positives and false negatives from the domain expert, constructing a utility measure of classification performance that integrates the expert preferences. Our findings suggest that the expert can, and should, provide more information than instance labels alone. In addition to achieving strong empirical results on the citation screening problem, this work outlines many important steps for moving away from simulated active learning and toward deploying AL for real-world applications. Display Omitted Active learning is promising in the areas with complex topics in systematic reviews.Certainty criteria is promising to accelerate screening regardless of the topic.Certainty criteria performs as well as uncertainty criteria in classification.Weighting positive instances is promising to overcome the data imbalance.Unsupervised methods enhance the classification performance. In systematic reviews, the growing number of published studies imposes a significant screening workload on reviewers. Active learning is a promising approach to reduce the workload by automating some of the screening decisions, but it has been evaluated for a limited number of disciplines. The suitability of applying active learning to complex topics in disciplines such as social science has not been studied, and the selection of useful criteria and enhancements to address the data imbalance problem in systematic reviews remains an open problem. We applied active learning with two criteria (certainty and uncertainty) and several enhancements in both clinical medicine and social science (specifically, public health) areas, and compared the results in both. The results show that the certainty criterion is useful for finding relevant documents, and weighting positive instances is promising to overcome the data imbalance problem in both data sets. Latent dirichlet allocation (LDA) is also shown to be promising when little manually-assigned information is available. Active learning is effective in complex topics, although its efficiency is limited due to the difficulties in text classification. The most promising criterion and weighting method are the same regardless of the review topic, and unsupervised techniques like LDA have a possibility to boost the performance of active learning without manual annotation.