RobotReviewer: Evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 193-201

  Marshall, Iain J ^a   Kuiper, Joël ^b   Wallace, Byron C ^c  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Data mining; Natural language processing; Randomized controlled trials as topic; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HUMAN VERSUS ANIMAL COMPARISON; MACHINE LEARNING; MODEL; RECALL; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; SYNTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WORKLOAD; ALGORITHM; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DATA BASE; DATA MINING; LITERATURE; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PEER REVIEW; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL BIAS;

ALGORITHMS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DATA MINING; DATABASES AS TOPIC; MACHINE LEARNING; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84959544337     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocv044     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 1.3.4. Assessing quality. In: Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. CRD, University of York 2009.
2. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928.
3. Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 2009; 339: b4012.
4. Tovey D, Marshall R, Hopewell S, et al. Fit for purpose: centralising updating support for high-priority Cochrane Reviews. National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials, and Studies Coordinating Centre 2011. [Available from http://editorial-unit.cochrane.org/fit-purpose-centralisedupdating-support-high-priority-cochrane-reviews].
5. Hartling L, Bond K, Vandermeer B, et al. Applying the risk of bias tool in a systematic review of combination long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma. PLoS One 2011; 6(2):e17242.
6. Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, et al. Systematic review automation technologies. Systematic reviews journal 2014; 3(1):74.
7. Marshall I, Kuiper J, Wallace B. Automating Risk of Bias Assessment for Clinical Trials. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine. New York, 2014; 88-95 [Available from: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/28954780/acmbcb2014_final_2.pdf].
8. Summerscales RL. Automatic Summarization of Clinical Abstracts for Evidence-Based Medicine [PhD thesis]. Illinois Institute of Technology 2013. [Available from: http://www.andrews.edu/~summersc/summerscales_phdthesis2013.pdf].
9. Kiritchenko S, Bruijn B de, Carini S, et al. ExaCT: automatic extraction of clinical trial characteristics from journal publications. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2010; 10(1): 56.
10. Mintz M, Bills S, Snow R, et al. Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, Volume 2. 2009;1003-11.
11. Ling, X, Jiang, J, He, X, et al. Automatically generating gene summaries from biomedical literature. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2006;(11) 40-51.
12. Banko M, Brill E. Scaling to very very large corpora for natural language disambiguation. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2001: 26-33. [Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1073017].
13. xPDF, Open Source PDF viewer [website], http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/Accessed January 2015.
14. Boser, BE, Guyon, IM, Vapnik, VN. A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In: Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory. ACM 2010. 144-152.
15. Caruana, R. Multitask learning. Springer US, 1998.
16. Higgins J, Altman D, Sterna J. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: The Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2011 [Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org].
17. Daumé H. Frustratingly easy domain adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Domain Adaptation for Natural Language Processing. 2010; 53-59. [Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1815].
18. Weinberger K, Dasgupta A, Langford J, et al. Feature hashing for large scale multitask learning. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM; 2009; 1113-1120.
19. Kuiper J, Marshall I, Wallace B, et al. Spá: A web-based viewer for text mining in evidence based medicine. In: Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg 2014; 452-455.
20. Adams CE, Polzmacher S, WolffA. Systematic reviews: work that needs to be done and not to be done. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 2013; 6(4):232-235.
21. Thomas J. Diffusion of innovation in systematic review methodology: Why is study selection not yet assisted by automation? OA Evidence-Based Medicine 2013; 1(2):1-6.