The Literature Review Network: An Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Systematic Literature Reviews, Meta-analyses, and Method Development

Joshua Morriss, Tod Brindle, Jessica Bah Rösman, Daniel Reibsamen, Andreas Enz
{"title":"The Literature Review Network: An Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Systematic Literature Reviews, Meta-analyses, and Method Development","authors":"Joshua Morriss, Tod Brindle, Jessica Bah Rösman, Daniel Reibsamen, Andreas Enz","doi":"arxiv-2408.05239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Systematic literature reviews are the highest quality of evidence in\nresearch. However, the review process is hindered by significant resource and\ndata constraints. The Literature Review Network (LRN) is the first of its kind\nexplainable AI platform adhering to PRISMA 2020 standards, designed to automate\nthe entire literature review process. LRN was evaluated in the domain of\nsurgical glove practices using 3 search strings developed by experts to query\nPubMed. A non-expert trained all LRN models. Performance was benchmarked\nagainst an expert manual review. Explainability and performance metrics\nassessed LRN's ability to replicate the experts' review. Concordance was\nmeasured with the Jaccard index and confusion matrices. Researchers were\nblinded to the other's results until study completion. Overlapping studies were\nintegrated into an LRN-generated systematic review. LRN models demonstrated\nsuperior classification accuracy without expert training, achieving 84.78% and\n85.71% accuracy. The highest performance model achieved high interrater\nreliability (k = 0.4953) and explainability metrics, linking 'reduce',\n'accident', and 'sharp' with 'double-gloving'. Another LRN model covered 91.51%\nof the relevant literature despite diverging from the non-expert's judgments (k\n= 0.2174), with the terms 'latex', 'double' (gloves), and 'indication'. LRN\noutperformed the manual review (19,920 minutes over 11 months), reducing the\nentire process to 288.6 minutes over 5 days. This study demonstrates that\nexplainable AI does not require expert training to successfully conduct\nPRISMA-compliant systematic literature reviews like an expert. LRN summarized\nthe results of surgical glove studies and identified themes that were nearly\nidentical to the clinical researchers' findings. Explainable AI can accurately\nexpedite our understanding of clinical practices, potentially revolutionizing\nhealthcare research.","PeriodicalId":501285,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2408.05239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Systematic literature reviews are the highest quality of evidence in research. However, the review process is hindered by significant resource and data constraints. The Literature Review Network (LRN) is the first of its kind explainable AI platform adhering to PRISMA 2020 standards, designed to automate the entire literature review process. LRN was evaluated in the domain of surgical glove practices using 3 search strings developed by experts to query PubMed. A non-expert trained all LRN models. Performance was benchmarked against an expert manual review. Explainability and performance metrics assessed LRN's ability to replicate the experts' review. Concordance was measured with the Jaccard index and confusion matrices. Researchers were blinded to the other's results until study completion. Overlapping studies were integrated into an LRN-generated systematic review. LRN models demonstrated superior classification accuracy without expert training, achieving 84.78% and 85.71% accuracy. The highest performance model achieved high interrater reliability (k = 0.4953) and explainability metrics, linking 'reduce', 'accident', and 'sharp' with 'double-gloving'. Another LRN model covered 91.51% of the relevant literature despite diverging from the non-expert's judgments (k = 0.2174), with the terms 'latex', 'double' (gloves), and 'indication'. LRN outperformed the manual review (19,920 minutes over 11 months), reducing the entire process to 288.6 minutes over 5 days. This study demonstrates that explainable AI does not require expert training to successfully conduct PRISMA-compliant systematic literature reviews like an expert. LRN summarized the results of surgical glove studies and identified themes that were nearly identical to the clinical researchers' findings. Explainable AI can accurately expedite our understanding of clinical practices, potentially revolutionizing healthcare research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
文献综述网络:用于系统文献综述、元分析和方法开发的可解释人工智能
系统文献综述是最高质量的研究证据。然而,文献综述过程却受到资源和数据的严重制约。文献综述网络(LRN)是首个符合 PRISMA 2020 标准的可解释人工智能平台,旨在实现整个文献综述过程的自动化。LRN 在外科手套实践领域进行了评估,使用专家开发的 3 个搜索字符串来查询 PubMed。一名非专家训练了所有 LRN 模型。其性能以专家人工审稿为基准。可解释性和性能指标评估了 LRN 复制专家审稿的能力。一致性用 Jaccard 指数和混淆矩阵来衡量。在研究完成之前,研究人员对对方的研究结果一概不知。重叠研究被整合到 LRN 生成的系统综述中。LRN 模型在没有专家培训的情况下表现出更高的分类准确性,准确率分别达到 84.78% 和 85.71%。性能最高的模型实现了较高的相互可靠度(k = 0.4953)和可解释性指标,将 "减少"、"事故 "和 "锐利 "与 "双层手套 "联系起来。另一个 LRN 模型覆盖了 91.51% 的相关文献,尽管与非专家的判断有偏差(k= 0.2174),但它将 "乳胶"、"双层"(手套)和 "指示 "等术语联系在一起。LRNout 进行了人工检索(11 个月 19920 分钟),将整个检索过程缩短为 5 天 288.6 分钟。这项研究表明,可解释的人工智能不需要专家培训就能像专家一样成功进行符合PRISMA标准的系统文献综述。LRN 总结了外科手套研究的结果,并确定了与临床研究人员的发现几乎相同的主题。可解释的人工智能可以准确地扩展我们对临床实践的理解,从而有可能彻底改变医疗保健研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Publishing Instincts: An Exploration-Exploitation Framework for Studying Academic Publishing Behavior and "Home Venues" Research Citations Building Trust in Wikipedia Evaluating the Linguistic Coverage of OpenAlex: An Assessment of Metadata Accuracy and Completeness Towards understanding evolution of science through language model series Ensuring Adherence to Standards in Experiment-Related Metadata Entered Via Spreadsheets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1