Viability of machine learning to reduce workload in systematic review screenings in the health sciences: a working paper

TL;DR

This study evaluates machine learning models, particularly SVM, for classifying health science abstracts to reduce workload in systematic reviews, showing promising accuracy and workload reduction potential.

Contribution

It demonstrates the viability of machine learning, especially SVM, for automating abstract classification in systematic reviews, a novel application in health sciences.

Findings

SVM achieved 90% accuracy in classifying abstracts.

Machine learning could reduce screening workload by 70%.

Models outperform simplistic textual approaches.

Abstract

Systematic reviews, which summarize and synthesize all the current research in a specific topic, are a crucial component to academia. They are especially important in the biomedical and health sciences, where they synthesize the state of medical evidence and conclude the best course of action for various diseases, pathologies, and treatments. Due to the immense amount of literature that exists, as well as the output rate of research, reviewing abstracts can be a laborious process. Automation may be able to significantly reduce this workload. Of course, such classifications are not easily automated due to the peculiar nature of written language. Machine learning may be able to help. This paper explored the viability and effectiveness of using machine learning modelling to classify abstracts according to specific exclusion/inclusion criteria, as would be done in the first stage of a systematic review. The specific task was performing the classification of deciding whether an abstract is a randomized control trial (RCT) or not, a very common classification made in systematic reviews in the healthcare field. Random training/testing splits of an n=2042 dataset of labelled abstracts were repeatedly created (1000 times in total), with a model trained and tested on each of these instances. A Bayes classifier as well as an SVM classifier were used, and compared to non-machine learning, simplistic approaches to textual classification. An SVM classifier was seen to be highly effective, yielding a 90% accuracy, as well as an F1 score of 0.84, and yielded a potential workload reduction of 70%. This shows that machine learning has the potential to significantly revolutionize the abstract screening process in healthcare systematic reviews.