Automating Quality Assessment of Medical Evidence in Systematic Reviews: Model Development and Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the quality of medical evidence available on the web is a critical step in the preparation of systematic reviews. Existing tools that automate parts of this task validate the quality of individual studies but not of entire bodies of evidence and focus on a restricted set of quality criteria. OBJECTIVE: We proposed a quality assessment task that provides an overall quality rating for each body of evidence (BoE), as well as finer-grained justification for different quality criteria according to the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation formalization framework. For this purpose, we constructed a new data set and developed a machine learning baseline system (EvidenceGRADEr). METHODS: We algorithmically extracted quality-related data from all summaries of findings found in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Each BoE was defined by a set of population, intervention, comparison, and outcome criteria and assigned a quality grade (high, moderate, low, or very low) together with quality criteria (justification) that influenced that decision. Different statistical data, metadata about the review, and parts of the review text were extracted as support for grading each BoE. After pruning the resulting data set with various quality checks, we used it to train several neural-model variants. The predictions were compared against the labels originally assigned by the authors of the systematic reviews. RESULTS: Our quality assessment data set, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Quality of Evidence, contains 13,440 instances, or BoEs labeled for quality, originating from 2252 systematic reviews published on the internet from 2002 to 2020. On the basis of a 10-fold cross-validation, the best neural binary classifiers for quality criteria detected risk of bias at 0.78 F1 (P=.68; R=0.92) and imprecision at 0.75 F1 (P=.66; R=0.86), while the performance on inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias criteria was lower (F1 in the range of 0.3-0.4). The prediction of the overall quality grade into 1 of the 4 levels resulted in 0.5 F1. When casting the task as a binary problem by merging the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation classes (high+moderate vs low+very low-quality evidence), we attained 0.74 F1. We also found that the results varied depending on the supporting information that is provided as an input to the models. CONCLUSIONS: Different factors affect the quality of evidence in the context of systematic reviews of medical evidence. Some of these (risk of bias and imprecision) can be automated with reasonable accuracy. Other quality dimensions such as indirectness, inconsistency, and publication bias prove more challenging for machine learning, largely because they are much rarer. This technology could substantially reduce reviewer workload in the future and expedite quality assessment as part of evidence synthesis.

Multi-label classification for biomedical literature: an overview of the BioCreative VII LitCovid Track for COVID-19 literature topic annotations.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been severely impacting global society since December 2019. The related findings such as vaccine and drug development have been reported in biomedical literature-at a rate of about 10 000 articles on COVID-19 per month. Such rapid growth significantly challenges manual curation and interpretation. For instance, LitCovid is a literature database of COVID-19-related articles in PubMed, which has accumulated more than 200 000 articles with millions of accesses each month by users worldwide. One primary curation task is to assign up to eight topics (e.g. Diagnosis and Treatment) to the articles in LitCovid. The annotated topics have been widely used for navigating the COVID literature, rapidly locating articles of interest and other downstream studies. However, annotating the topics has been the bottleneck of manual curation. Despite the continuing advances in biomedical text-mining methods, few have been dedicated to topic annotations in COVID-19 literature. To close the gap, we organized the BioCreative LitCovid track to call for a community effort to tackle automated topic annotation for COVID-19 literature. The BioCreative LitCovid dataset-consisting of over 30 000 articles with manually reviewed topics-was created for training and testing. It is one of the largest multi-label classification datasets in biomedical scientific literature. Nineteen teams worldwide participated and made 80 submissions in total. Most teams used hybrid systems based on transformers. The highest performing submissions achieved 0.8875, 0.9181 and 0.9394 for macro-F1-score, micro-F1-score and instance-based F1-score, respectively. Notably, these scores are substantially higher (e.g. 12%, higher for macro F1-score) than the corresponding scores of the state-of-art multi-label classification method. The level of participation and results demonstrate a successful track and help close the gap between dataset curation and method development. The dataset is publicly available via https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/lu/LitCovid/biocreative/ for benchmarking and further development. Database URL https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/lu/LitCovid/biocreative/.