Toward modernizing the systematic review pipeline in genetics: Efficient updating via data mining

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 14, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 663-669

  Wallace, Byron C ^a,b   Small, Kevin ^a   Brodley, Carla E ^b   Lau, Joseph ^a   Schmid, Christopher H ^a   Bertram, Lars ^c   Lill, Christina M ^c,d   Cohen, Joshua T ^a   Trikalinos, Thomas A ^a  

^a TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Tufts University   (United States)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR MOLECULAR GENETICS   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER MAINZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

citation screening; machine learning; meta analysis; support vector machine; text classification

Indexed keywords

ALZHEIMER DISEASE; AUTOMATION; CLASSIFICATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DATA MINING; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDLINE; MODEL; PARKINSON DISEASE; PUBLICATION; REGISTER; REVIEW; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

EID: 84863686275     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.7     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000326.
2. Koch GG. No improvement-still less than half of the Cochrane reviews are up to date. XIV Cochrane Colloquium (Ireland) 2006.
3. Garritty C, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Moher D. Updating systematic reviews: an international survey. PLoS ONE 2010;5:e9914.
4. Frodsham AJ, Higgins JP. Online genetic databases informing human genome epidemiology. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:31.
5. Allen IE, Olkin I. Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrieved. JAMA 1999;282:634-635. (Pubitemid 29384150)
6. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Finding What Works in Healthcare. Standards for Systematic Reviews. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2011.
7. Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:502-512.
8. Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1187-1197.
9. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al.; Methods Work Group, Third US Preventive Services Task Force. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(3 Suppl):21-35. (Pubitemid 33732964)
10. Helfand M, Balshem H. AHRQ series paper 2: principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:484-490.
11. Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions-agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:513-523.
12. Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S, Sharp BA. AHRQ series paper 1: comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:481-483.
13. Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:491-501.
14. Lin BK, Clyne M, Walsh M, et al. Tracking the epidemiology of human genes in the literature: the HuGE Published Literature database. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:1-4. (Pubitemid 43946283)
15. Yu W, Gwinn M, Clyne M, Yesupriya A, Khoury MJ. A navigator for human genome epidemiology. Nat Genet 2008;40:124-125.
16. Yu W, Clyne M, Dolan SM, et al. GAPscreener: an automatic tool for screening human genetic association literature in PubMed using the support vector machine technique. BMC Bioinformatics 2008;9:205.
17. Wallace BC, Trikalinos TA, Lau J, Brodley C, Schmid CH. Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews. BMC Bioinformatics 2010;11:55.
18. Lill CM, Roehr JT, McQueen MB, et al. Comprehensive research synopsis and systematic meta-analyses in Parklinson's disease: The PDGene database 2012, in press.
19. Bertram L, McQueen MB, Mullin K, Blacker D, Tanzi RE. Systematic metaanalyses of Alzheimer disease genetic association studies: the AlzGene database. Nat Genet 2007;39:17-23. (Pubitemid 46026496)
20. Allen NC, Bagade S, McQueen MB, et al. Systematic meta-analyses and field synopsis of genetic association studies in schizophrenia: the SzGene database. Nat Genet 2008;40:827-834. (Pubitemid 351913655)
21. Vapnik VN. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer: New York, 2000.
22. Joachims T. Text Categorization With Support Vector Machines: Learning With Many Relevant Features. Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1998.
23. Van Hulse J, Khoshgoftaar TM, Napolitano A. Experimental perspectives on learning from imbalanced data. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) 2007:935-942.
24. Small KM, Wallace BC, Brodley CE, Trikalinos TA. The constrained weight space SVM: Learning with labeled features. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) 2011:865-872.
25. Wallace BC, Small KM, Brodley CE, Trikalinos TA. Active learning for biomedical citation screening. Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) 2010:173-182.
26. Wallace BC, Small KM, Brodley CE, Trikalinos TA. Modeling annotation time to reduce workload in comparative effectiveness reviews. Proc ACM International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI) 2010:28-35.
27. Wallace BC, Small KM, Brodley CE, Trikalinos TA. Who should label what? Instance allocation in multiple expert active learning. Proc SIAM International Conference on Data Mining 2011:176-187.
28. Breiman L. Bagging predictors. Journal of Machine Learning 1996:123-140. (Pubitemid 126724382)
29. Kang P, Cho S. EUS SVMs: ensemble of under-sampled SVMs for data imbalance problems 2006;4232:837-846.
30. Chang C-C, Lin C-J. LIBSVM: A Library for Support Vector Machines. http://www csie ntu edu tw/~cjlin/libsvm.
31. Seeman E, Boonen S, Borgström F, et al. Five years treatment with strontium ranelate reduces vertebral and nonvertebral fractures and increases the number and quality of remaining life-years in women over 80 years of age. Bone 2010;46:1038-1042.
32. Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I, Wentz R. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med 2002;21:1635-1640. (Pubitemid 34746067)
33. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Healthcare. York Publishing Services: York, UK, 2009.
34. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://www. cochrane-handbook.org.
35. Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care. Standards for Systematic Reviews. National Acedemies Press: Washington, DC, 2011.
36. Relevo R, Balshem H. Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1168-1177.
37. Trikalinos TA, Siebert U, Lau J. Decision-analytic modeling to evaluate benefits and harms of medical tests: uses and limitations. Med Decis Making 2009;29:E22-E29.
38. Hayen A, Macaskill P, Irwig L, Bossuyt P. Appropriate statistical methods are required to assess diagnostic tests for replacement, add-on, and triage. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:883-891.
39. Irwig L, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Gatsonis C, Lijmer J. Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable. BMJ 2002;324:669-671. (Pubitemid 34234977)
40. Lord SJ, Irwig L, Bossuyt PM. Using the principles of randomized controlled trial design to guide test evaluation. Med Decis Making 2009;29:E1-E12.