skip to main content
10.1145/3477495.3531748acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

From Little Things Big Things Grow: A Collection with Seed Studies for Medical Systematic Review Literature Search

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 July 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Medical systematic review query formulation is a highly complex task done by trained information specialists. Complexity comes from the reliance on lengthy Boolean queries, which express a detailed research question. To aid query formulation, information specialists use a set of exemplar documents, called 'seed studies', prior to query formulation. Seed studies help verify the effectiveness of a query prior to the full assessment of retrieved studies. Beyond this use of seeds, specific IR methods can exploit seed studies for guiding both automatic query formulation and new retrieval models. One major limitation of work to date is that these methods exploit 'pseudo seed studies' through retrospective use of included studies (i.e., relevance assessments). However, we show pseudo seed studies are not representative of real seed studies used by information specialists. Hence, we provide a test collection with real world seed studies used to assist with the formulation of queries. To support our collection, we provide an analysis, previously not possible, on how seed studies impact retrieval and perform several experiments using seed study based methods to compare the effectiveness of using seed studies versus pseudo seed studies. We make our test collection and the results of all of our experiments and analysis available at http://github.com/ielab/sysrev-seed-collection.

References

  1. Mustafa Abualsaud, Nimesh Ghelani, Haotian Zhang, Mark D Smucker, Gordon V Cormack, and Maura R Grossman. 2018. A system for efficient high-recall retrieval. In The 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval . 1317--1320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Amal Alharbi and Mark Stevenson. 2019. A dataset of systematic review updates. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 1257--1260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Amal Alharbi and Mark Stevenson. 2020. Refining Boolean queries to identify relevant studies for systematic review updates. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , Vol. 27, 11 (2020), 1658--1666.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Krystal Bullers, Allison M Howard, Ardis Hanson, William D Kearns, John J Orriola, Randall L Polo, and Kristen A Sakmar. 2018. It Takes Longer than You Think: Librarian Time Spent on Systematic Review Tasks. Journal of the Medical Library Association , Vol. 106, 2 (2018), 198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Miew Keen Choong, Filippo Galgani, Adam G Dunn, and Guy Tsafnat. 2014. Automatic evidence retrieval for systematic reviews. Journal of medical Internet research , Vol. 16, 10 (2014), e3369.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Justin Clark. 2013. Systematic Reviewing. In Methods of Clinical Epidemiology , , Gail M. Williams Suhail A. R. Doi (Ed.).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Justin Clark, Paul Glasziou, Chris Del Mar, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Paulina Stehlik, and Anna Mae Scott. 2020. A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study. Journal of Chronic Diseases , Vol. 121 (May 2020), 81--90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.008Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Francesco Colace, Massimo De Santo, Luca Greco, and Paolo Napoletano. 2011. Improving text retrieval accuracy by using a minimal relevance feedback. In International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering, and Knowledge Management. Springer, 126--140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gordon V Cormack and Maura R Grossman. 2014. Evaluation of machine-learning protocols for technology-assisted review in electronic discovery. In Proceedings of the 37th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research & development in information retrieval . 153--162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gordon V Cormack and Maura R Grossman. 2015. Autonomy and reliability of continuous active learning for technology-assisted review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.06868 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Gordon V Cormack and Maura R Grossman. 2016. Scalability of continuous active learning for reliable high-recall text classification. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM international on conference on information and knowledge management . 1039--1048.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio. 2020. A Study on a Stopping Strategy for Systematic Reviews Based on a Distributed Effort Approach. In International Conference of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum for European Languages. Springer, 112--123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Trisha Greenhalgh and Richard Peacock. 2005. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. Bmj , Vol. 331, 7524 (2005), 1064--1065.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Neal Haddaway, Matt Grainger, and Charles Gray. 2021. citationchaser: An R package and Shiny app for forward and backward citations chasing in academic searching. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4543513Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Elke Hausner, Siw Waffenschmidt, Thomas Kaiser, and Michael Simon. 2012. Routine Development of Objectively Derived Search Strategies. Systematic reviews , Vol. 1, 1 (2012), 19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Sampath Jayarathna, Atish Patra, and Frank Shipman. 2015. Unified relevance feedback for multi-application user interest modeling. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries . 129--138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Evangelos Kanoulas, Dan Li, Leif Azzopardi, and Rene Spijker. 2017. CLEF 2017 technologically assisted reviews in empirical medicine overview. In CEUR workshop proceedings, Vol. 1866. 1--29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Evangelos Kanoulas, Dan Li, Leif Azzopardi, and René Spijker. 2018. CLEF 2018 Technologically Assisted Reviews in Empirical Medicine Overview. In CLEF .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Evangelos Kanoulas, Dan Li, Leif Azzopardi, and Rene Spijker. 2019. CLEF 2019 technology assisted reviews in empirical medicine overview. In CEUR workshop proceedings , Vol. 2380.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Rianne Kaptein, Jaap Kamps, and Djoerd Hiemstra. 2008. The impact of positive, negative and topical relevance feedback . Technical Report. AMSTERDAM UNIV (NETHERLANDS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Athanasios Lagopoulos, Antonios Anagnostou, Adamantios Minas, and Grigorios Tsoumakas. 2018. Learning-to-rank and relevance feedback for literature appraisal in empirical medicine. In International conference of the cross-language evaluation forum for European languages. Springer, 52--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Victor Lavrenko and W Bruce Croft. 2017. Relevance-based language models. In ACM SIGIR Forum, Vol. 51. ACM New York, NY, USA, 260--267.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Grace E Lee and Aixin Sun. 2018. Seed-driven document ranking for systematic reviews in evidence-based medicine. In The 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval. 455--464.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Dan Li and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2020. When to stop reviewing in technology-assisted reviews: Sampling from an adaptive distribution to estimate residual relevant documents. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) , Vol. 38, 4 (2020), 1--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Donna Maglott, Jim Ostell, Kim D Pruitt, and Tatiana Tatusova. 2005. Entrez Gene: gene-centered information at NCBI. Nucleic acids research , Vol. 33, suppl_1 (2005), D54--D58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jessie McGowan and Margaret Sampson. 2005. Systematic Reviews Need Systematic Searchers (IRP ). Journal of the Medical Library Association , Vol. 93, 1 (2005), 74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Christopher Norman, Mariska Leeflang, and Aurélie Névéol. 2018. Data extraction and synthesis in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: a corpus for automating and evaluating the process. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings , Vol. 2018. American Medical Informatics Association, 817.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Mateus Pereira, Elham Etemad, and Fernando Paulovich. 2020. Iterative learning to rank from explicit relevance feedback. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. 698--705.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Animesh Prasad, Manpreet Kaur, and Min-Yen Kan. 2018. Neural ParsCit : A Deep Learning Based Reference String Parser. Journal on Digital Libraries , Vol. 19 (2018), 323--337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Piotr Przybyła, Austin J Brockmeier, Georgios Kontonatsios, Marie-Annick Le Pogam, John McNaught, Erik von Elm, Kay Nolan, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2018. Prioritising references for systematic reviews with RobotAnalyst: a user study. Research synthesis methods , Vol. 9, 3 (2018), 470--488.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. JJ Rocchio and Gerard Salton. 1965. Information search optimization and interactive retrieval techniques. In Proceedings of the November 30--December 1, 1965, fall joint computer conference, part I . 293--305.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Claude Sammut and Geoffrey I. Webb (Eds.). 2010. Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation .Springer US, Boston, MA, 600--601. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0--387--30164--8_469Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, and Bevan Koopman. 2019. Automatic Boolean Query Refinement for Systematic Review Literature Search. In The World Wide Web Conference (San Francisco, CA, USA) (WWW '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1646--1656. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3313544Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, and Bevan Koopman. 2020 a. You can teach an old dog new tricks: Rank fusion applied to coordination level matching for ranking in systematic reviews. In European conference on information retrieval . Springer, 399--414.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, and Bevan Koopman. 2021. A comparison of automatic Boolean query formulation for systematic reviews. Information Retrieval Journal , Vol. 24, 1 (2021), 3--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, Bevan Koopman, and Justin Clark. 2020 b. Automatic Boolean query formulation for systematic review literature search. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. 1071--1081.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, Bevan Koopman, and Justin Clark. 2020 c. A computational approach for objectively derived systematic review search strategies. In European conference on information retrieval. Springer, 385--398.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, Bevan Koopman, Anthony Deacon, Leif Azzopardi, and Shlomo Geva. 2017. A test collection for evaluating retrieval of studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 1237--1240.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, Mohamed A. Sharaf, and Bevan Koopman. 2020 d. Sampling Query Variations for Learning to Rank to Improve Automatic Boolean Query Generation in Systematic Reviews .Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3041--3048. https://doi.org/10.1145/3366423.3380075Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Alison Sneyd and Mark Stevenson. 2021. Stopping Criteria for Technology Assisted Reviews based on Counting Processes. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2293--2297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Shuai Wang, Hang Li, Harrisen Scells, Daniel Locke, and Guido Zuccon. 2021. MeSH Term Suggestion for Systematic Review Literature Search. In Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Document Computing Symposium (Virtual Event, Australia) (ADCS '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3503516.3503530Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Shuai Wang, Harrisen Scells, Ahmed Mourad, and Guido Zuccon. 2022. Seed-Driven Document Ranking for Systematic Reviews: A Reproducibility Study. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 686--700.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Haotian Zhang, Mustafa Abualsaud, Nimesh Ghelani, Mark D Smucker, Gordon V Cormack, and Maura R Grossman. 2018. Effective user interaction for high-recall retrieval: Less is more. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management . 187--196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Jie Zou, Dan Li, and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2018. Technology assisted reviews: Finding the last few relevant documents by asking yes/no questions to reviewers. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval . 949--952.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. From Little Things Big Things Grow: A Collection with Seed Studies for Medical Systematic Review Literature Search

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SIGIR '22: Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
            July 2022
            3569 pages
            ISBN:9781450387323
            DOI:10.1145/3477495

            Copyright © 2022 ACM

            Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 7 July 2022

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader