» Articles » PMID: 38686019

Cost-effectiveness of Microsoft Academic Graph with Machine Learning for Automated Study Identification in a Living Map of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Research

Overview
Date 2024 Apr 30
PMID 38686019
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Identifying new, eligible studies for integration into living systematic reviews and maps usually relies on conventional Boolean updating searches of multiple databases and manual processing of the updated results. Automated searches of one, comprehensive, continuously updated source, with adjunctive machine learning, could enable more efficient searching, selection and prioritisation workflows for updating (living) reviews and maps, though research is needed to establish this. Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) is a potentially comprehensive single source which also contains metadata that can be used in machine learning to help efficiently identify eligible studies. This study sought to establish whether: (a) MAG was a sufficiently sensitive single source to maintain our living map of COVID-19 research; and (b) eligible records could be identified with an acceptably high level of specificity.

Methods: We conducted an eight-arm cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the costs, recall and precision of semi-automated workflows, incorporating MAG with adjunctive machine learning, for continually updating our living map. Resource use data (time use) were collected from information specialists and other researchers involved in map production. Our systematic review software, EPPI-Reviewer, was adapted to incorporate MAG and associated machine learning workflows, and also used to collect data on recall, precision, and manual screening workload.

Results: The semi-automated MAG-enabled workflow dominated conventional workflows in both the base case and sensitivity analyses. At one month our MAG-enabled workflow with machine learning, active learning and fixed screening targets identified 469 additional, eligible articles for inclusion in our living map, and cost £3,179 GBP per week less, compared with conventional methods relying on Boolean searches of Medline and Embase.

Conclusions: We were able to increase recall and coverage of a large living map, whilst reducing its production costs. This finding is likely to be transferrable to OpenAlex, MAG's successor database platform.

Citing Articles

The FAIR database: facilitating access to public health research literature.

Zhao Z, Thomas J, Kell G, Stansfield C, Clowes M, Graziosi S JAMIA Open. 2024; 7(4):ooae139.

PMID: 39677536 PMC: 11641844. DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae139.


Artificial intelligence in food and nutrition evidence: The challenges and opportunities.

Bailey R, MacFarlane A, Field M, Tagkopoulos I, Baranzini S, Edwards K PNAS Nexus. 2024; 3(12):pgae461.

PMID: 39677367 PMC: 11638775. DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae461.


Using machine learning to extract information and predict outcomes from reports of randomised trials of smoking cessation interventions in the Human Behaviour-Change Project.

West R, Bonin F, Thomas J, Wright A, Mac Aonghusa P, Gleize M Wellcome Open Res. 2024; 8:452.

PMID: 38779058 PMC: 11109593. DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20000.1.


Applying the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) framework to evaluate automated evidence synthesis in health behaviour change.

Branney P, Marques M, Norris E J Health Psychol. 2024; 29(7):770-781.

PMID: 38456322 PMC: 11141093. DOI: 10.1177/13591053241229870.


Systematic reviews of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 continue to be poorly conducted and reported: a systematic review.

Whear R, Bethel A, Abbott R, Rogers M, Orr N, Manzi S J Clin Epidemiol. 2022; 151:53-64.

PMID: 35934268 PMC: 9351208. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.005.

References
1.
Marshall I, Wallace B . Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Syst Rev. 2019; 8(1):163. PMC: 6621996. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9. View

2.
OMara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, Miwa M, Ananiadou S . Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Syst Rev. 2015; 4:5. PMC: 4320539. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-5. View

3.
OConnor A, Tsafnat G, Gilbert S, Thayer K, Shemilt I, Thomas J . Still moving toward automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the third meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Syst Rev. 2019; 8(1):57. PMC: 6381675. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-0975-y. View

4.
Michie S, Thomas J, Mac Aonghusa P, West R, Johnston M, Kelly M . The Human Behaviour-Change Project: An artificial intelligence system to answer questions about changing behaviour. Wellcome Open Res. 2020; 5:122. PMC: 7287511. DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15900.1. View

5.
Arno A, Elliott J, Wallace B, Turner T, Thomas J . The views of health guideline developers on the use of automation in health evidence synthesis. Syst Rev. 2021; 10(1):16. PMC: 7796617. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-020-01569-2. View