Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPanayi, Antonia
dc.contributor.authorWard, Katherine
dc.contributor.authorBenhadji-Schaff, Amir
dc.contributor.authorIbanez-Lopez, A Santiago
dc.contributor.authorXia, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorBarzilay, Regina
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-10T18:44:01Z
dc.date.available2023-10-10T18:44:01Z
dc.date.issued2023-10-06
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/152400
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background Evidence-based medicine requires synthesis of research through rigorous and time-intensive systematic literature reviews (SLRs), with significant resource expenditure for data extraction from scientific publications. Machine learning may enable the timely completion of SLRs and reduce errors by automating data identification and extraction. Methods We evaluated the use of machine learning to extract data from publications related to SLRs in oncology (SLR 1) and Fabry disease (SLR 2). SLR 1 predominantly contained interventional studies and SLR 2 observational studies. Predefined key terms and data were manually annotated to train and test bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) and bidirectional long-short-term memory machine learning models. Using human annotation as a reference, we assessed the ability of the models to identify biomedical terms of interest (entities) and their relations. We also pretrained BERT on a corpus of 100,000 open access clinical publications and/or enhanced context-dependent entity classification with a conditional random field (CRF) model. Performance was measured using the F1 score, a metric that combines precision and recall. We defined successful matches as partial overlap of entities of the same type. Results For entity recognition, the pretrained BERT+CRF model had the best performance, with an F1 score of 73% in SLR 1 and 70% in SLR 2. Entity types identified with the highest accuracy were metrics for progression-free survival (SLR 1, F1 score 88%) or for patient age (SLR 2, F1 score 82%). Treatment arm dosage was identified less successfully (F1 scores 60% [SLR 1] and 49% [SLR 2]). The best-performing model for relation extraction, pretrained BERT relation classification, exhibited F1 scores higher than 90% in cases with at least 80 relation examples for a pair of related entity types. Conclusions The performance of BERT is enhanced by pretraining with biomedical literature and by combining with a CRF model. With refinement, machine learning may assist with manual data extraction for SLRs.en_US
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02351-wen_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licenseen_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.titleEvaluation of a prototype machine learning tool to semi-automate data extraction for systematic literature reviewsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationSystematic Reviews. 2023 Oct 06;12(1):187en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
dc.identifier.mitlicensePUBLISHER_CC
dc.identifier.mitlicensePUBLISHER_CC
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dc.date.updated2023-10-08T03:12:15Z
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderBioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature
dspace.embargo.termsN
dspace.date.submission2023-10-08T03:12:15Z
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CC
mit.metadata.statusAuthority Work and Publication Information Neededen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record