Open Source Software for Efficient and Transparent Reviews
Authors:
Rens van de Schoot,
Jonathan de Bruin,
Raoul Schram,
Parisa Zahedi,
Jan de Boer,
Felix Weijdema,
Bianca Kramer,
Martijn Huijts,
Maarten Hoogerwerf,
Gerbrich Ferdinands,
Albert Harkema,
Joukje Willemsen,
Yongchao Ma,
Qixiang Fang,
Sybren Hindriks,
Lars Tummers,
Daniel Oberski
Abstract:
To help researchers conduct a systematic review or meta-analysis as efficiently and transparently as possible, we designed a tool (ASReview) to accelerate the step of screening titles and abstracts. For many tasks - including but not limited to systematic reviews and meta-analyses - the scientific literature needs to be checked systematically. Currently, scholars and practitioners screen thousands…
▽ More
To help researchers conduct a systematic review or meta-analysis as efficiently and transparently as possible, we designed a tool (ASReview) to accelerate the step of screening titles and abstracts. For many tasks - including but not limited to systematic reviews and meta-analyses - the scientific literature needs to be checked systematically. Currently, scholars and practitioners screen thousands of studies by hand to determine which studies to include in their review or meta-analysis. This is error prone and inefficient because of extremely imbalanced data: only a fraction of the screened studies is relevant. The future of systematic reviewing will be an interaction with machine learning algorithms to deal with the enormous increase of available text. We therefore developed an open source machine learning-aided pipeline applying active learning: ASReview. We demonstrate by means of simulation studies that ASReview can yield far more efficient reviewing than manual reviewing, while providing high quality. Furthermore, we describe the options of the free and open source research software and present the results from user experience tests. We invite the community to contribute to open source projects such as our own that provide measurable and reproducible improvements over current practice.
△ Less
Submitted 4 December, 2020; v1 submitted 22 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
The Data Representativeness Criterion: Predicting the Performance of Supervised Classification Based on Data Set Similarity
Authors:
Evelien Schat,
Rens van de Schoot,
Wouter M. Kouw,
Duco Veen,
Adriënne M. Mendrik
Abstract:
In a broad range of fields it may be desirable to reuse a supervised classification algorithm and apply it to a new data set. However, generalization of such an algorithm and thus achieving a similar classification performance is only possible when the training data used to build the algorithm is similar to new unseen data one wishes to apply it to. It is often unknown in advance how an algorithm…
▽ More
In a broad range of fields it may be desirable to reuse a supervised classification algorithm and apply it to a new data set. However, generalization of such an algorithm and thus achieving a similar classification performance is only possible when the training data used to build the algorithm is similar to new unseen data one wishes to apply it to. It is often unknown in advance how an algorithm will perform on new unseen data, being a crucial reason for not deploying an algorithm at all. Therefore, tools are needed to measure the similarity of data sets. In this paper, we propose the Data Representativeness Criterion (DRC) to determine how representative a training data set is of a new unseen data set. We present a proof of principle, to see whether the DRC can quantify the similarity of data sets and whether the DRC relates to the performance of a supervised classification algorithm. We compared a number of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data sets, ranging from subtle to severe difference is acquisition parameters. Results indicate that, based on the similarity of data sets, the DRC is able to give an indication as to when the performance of a supervised classifier decreases. The strictness of the DRC can be set by the user, depending on what one considers to be an acceptable underperformance.
△ Less
Submitted 27 February, 2020;
originally announced February 2020.
