Author
Listed:
- Cynthia Lokker
- Wael Abdelkader
- Elham Bagheri
- Rick Parrish
- Chris Cotoi
- Tamara Navarro
- Federico Germini
- Lori-Ann Linkins
- R Brian Haynes
- Lingyang Chu
- Muhammad Afzal
- Alfonso Iorio
Abstract
Given the suboptimal performance of Boolean searching to identify methodologically sound and clinically relevant studies in large bibliographic databases, exploring machine learning (ML) to efficiently classify studies is warranted. To boost the efficiency of a literature surveillance program, we used a large internationally recognized dataset of articles tagged for methodological rigor and applied an automated ML approach to train and test binary classification models to predict the probability of clinical research articles being of high methodologic quality. We trained over 12,000 models on a dataset of titles and abstracts of 97,805 articles indexed in PubMed from 2012–2018 which were manually appraised for rigor by highly trained research associates and rated for clinical relevancy by practicing clinicians. As the dataset is unbalanced, with more articles that do not meet the criteria for rigor, we used the unbalanced dataset and over- and under-sampled datasets. Models that maintained sensitivity for high rigor at 99% and maximized specificity were selected and tested in a retrospective set of 30,424 articles from 2020 and validated prospectively in a blinded study of 5253 articles. The final selected algorithm, combining a LightGBM (gradient boosting machine) model trained in each dataset, maintained high sensitivity and achieved 57% specificity in the retrospective validation test and 53% in the prospective study. The number of articles needed to read to find one that met appraisal criteria was 3.68 (95% CI 3.52 to 3.85) in the prospective study, compared with 4.63 (95% CI 4.50 to 4.77) when relying only on Boolean searching. Gradient-boosting ML models reduced the work required to classify high quality clinical research studies by 45%, improving the efficiency of literature surveillance and subsequent dissemination to clinicians and other evidence users.Author summary: With so many health-related research studies being published, it can be overwhelming to find the best ones for making healthcare decisions. For nearly 25 years, our research group has been helping by creating tools to search through these studies. Our expert team uses these tools to find and assess the most reliable and important studies for healthcare providers and patients. In this study, we used an automated machine learning technique to speed up this process and reduce the effort needed. We trained models to identify studies with strong methods using data from almost 98,000 articles. We tested over 12,000 models and chose the best one, that used a technique called LightGBM, which missed the fewest good studies. Adding this model to our process reduced our workload by 45%. This means we can now find high-quality research more quickly and efficiently, helping healthcare providers and other users get the best evidence faster.
Suggested Citation
Cynthia Lokker & Wael Abdelkader & Elham Bagheri & Rick Parrish & Chris Cotoi & Tamara Navarro & Federico Germini & Lori-Ann Linkins & R Brian Haynes & Lingyang Chu & Muhammad Afzal & Alfonso Iorio, 2024.
"Boosting efficiency in a clinical literature surveillance system with LightGBM,"
PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(9), pages 1-16, September.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000299
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000299
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.