A Deep Learning Method to Automatically Identify Reports of Scientifically Rigorous Clinical Research from the Biomedical Literature: Comparative Analytic Study (Preprint)
Preprint
- 5 March 2018
- preprint
- Published by JMIR Publications Inc. in JMIR Preprints
Abstract
BACKGROUND A major barrier to the practice of evidence-based medicine is efficiently finding scientifically sound studies on a given clinical topic. OBJECTIVE To investigate a deep learning approach to retrieve scientifically sound treatment studies from the biomedical literature. METHODS We trained a Convolutional Neural Network using a noisy dataset of 403,216 PubMed citations with title and abstract as features. The deep learning model was compared with state-of-the-art search filters, such as PubMed’s Clinical Query Broad treatment filter, McMaster’s textword search strategy (no Medical Subject Heading, MeSH, terms), and Clinical Query Balanced treatment filter. A previously annotated dataset (Clinical Hedges) was used as the gold standard. RESULTS The deep learning model obtained significantly lower recall than the Clinical Queries Broad treatment filter (96.9% vs 98.4%; P<.001); and equivalent recall to McMaster’s textword search (96.9% vs 97.1%; P=.57) and Clinical Queries Balanced filter (96.9% vs 97.0%; P=.63). Deep learning obtained significantly higher precision than the Clinical Queries Broad filter (34.6% vs 22.4%; P<.001) and McMaster’s textword search (34.6% vs 11.8%; P<.001), but was significantly lower than the Clinical Queries Balanced filter (34.6% vs 40.9%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Deep learning performed well compared to state-of-the-art search filters, especially when citations were not indexed. Unlike previous machine learning approaches, the proposed deep learning model does not require feature engineering, or time-sensitive or proprietary features, such as MeSH terms and bibliometrics. Deep learning is a promising approach to identifying reports of scientifically rigorous clinical research. Further work is needed to optimize the deep learning model and to assess generalizability to other areas, such as diagnosis, etiology, and prognosis.Keywords
All Related Versions
- Published version: Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20 (6), e10281.
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and howJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2017
- Clinical Questions Raised by Clinicians at the Point of CareJAMA Internal Medicine, 2014
- MEDLINE clinical queries are robust when searching in recent publishing yearsJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2013
- Cross-Topic Learning for Work Prioritization in Systematic Review Creation and UpdateJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2009
- Towards Automatic Recognition of Scientifically Rigorous Clinical Research EvidenceJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2009
- Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviewsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2008
- Using Citation Data to Improve Retrieval from MEDLINEJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2006
- Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalsePLOS Medicine, 2005
- An overview of the design and methods for retrieving high-quality studies for clinical careBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2005
- Text Categorization Models for High-Quality Article Retrieval in Internal MedicineJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2004