Sensitivity and specificity of alternative screening methods for systematic reviews using text mining tools.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of text mining (TM) on the sensitivity and specificity of title and abstract screening strategies for systematic reviews (SRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Twenty reviewers each evaluated a 500-citation set. We compared five screening methods: conventional double screen (CDS), single screen, double screen with TM, combined double screen and single screen with TM, and single screen with TM. Rayyan, Abstrackr, and SWIFT-Review were used for each TM method. The results of a published SR were used as the reference standard. RESULTS: The mean sensitivity and specificity achieved by CDS were 97.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94.7, 99.3) and 95.0% (95% CI: 93.0, 97.1). When compared with single screen, CDS provided a greater sensitivity without a decrease in specificity. Rayyan, Abstrackr, and SWIFT-Review identified all relevant studies. Specificity was often higher for TM-assisted methods than that for CDS, although with mean differences of only one-to-two percentage points. For every 500 citations not requiring manual screening, 216 minutes (95% CI: 169, 264) could be saved. CONCLUSION: TM-assisted screening methods resulted in similar sensitivity and modestly improved specificity as compared to CDS. The time saved with TM makes this a promising new tool for SR.

Interocular difference thresholds are mediated by binocular differencing, not summing, channels.

Patterns in the two eyes' views that are not identical in hue or contrast often elicit an impression of luster, providing a cue for discriminating them from perfectly matched patterns. Here we attempt to determine the mechanisms for detecting interocular differences in luminance contrast, in particular in relation to the possible contributions of binocular differencing and binocular summing channels. Test patterns were horizontally oriented multi-spatial-frequency luminance-grating patterns subject to variable amounts of interocular difference in grating phase, resulting in varying degrees of local interocular contrast difference. Two types of experiment were conducted. In the first, subjects discriminated between a pedestal with an interocular difference that ranged upward from zero (i.e., binocularly correlated) and a test pattern that contained a bigger interocular difference. In the second type of experiment, subjects discriminated between a pedestal with an interocular difference that ranged downward from a maximum (i.e., binocularly anticorrelated) and a test pattern that contained smaller interocular difference. The two types of task could be mediated by a binocular differencing and a binocular summing channel, respectively. However, we found that the results from both experiments were well described by a simpler model in which a single, linear binocular differencing channel is followed by a standard nonlinear transducer that is expansive for small signals but strongly compressive for large ones. Possible reasons for the lack of involvement of a binocular summing channel are discussed in the context of a model that incorporates the responses of both monocular and binocular channels.