REVIEW 1 cited by
From Protocol to Screening: A Hybrid Learning Approach for Technology-Assisted Systematic Literature Reviews
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
From Protocol to Screening: A Hybrid Learning Approach for Technology-Assisted Systematic Literature Reviews
read the original abstract
In the medical domain, a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) attempts to collect all empirical evidence, that fit pre-specified eligibility criteria, in order to answer a specific research question. The process of preparing an SLR consists of multiple tasks that are labor-intensive and time-consuming, involving large monetary costs. Technology-assisted review (TAR) methods automate the different processes of creating an SLR and they are particularly focused on reducing the burden of screening for reviewers. We present a novel method for TAR that implements a full pipeline from the research protocol to the screening of the relevant papers. Our pipeline overcomes the need of a Boolean query constructed by specialists and consists of three different components: the primary retrieval engine, the inter-review ranker and the intra-review ranker, combining learning-to-rank techniques with a relevance feedback method. In addition, we contribute an updated version of the Task 2 of the CLEF 2019 eHealth Lab dataset, which we make publicly available. Empirical results on this dataset show that our approach can achieve state-of-the-art results.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Illusions of the Gold Standard: A Large-scale Analysis of Human Evaluation Protocols for Long-form Text Generation
A systematic analysis of 284 manually reviewed papers plus 1.8k+ others from 2023-2025 reveals under-reporting of human evaluation study design details, creating ambiguity in what was measured and how.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.