4.6 Review

The use of artificial intelligence for automating or semi-automating biomedical literature analyses: A scoping review

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS
Volume 142, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104389

Keywords

Evidence-based medicine; Systematic reviews; Randomized controlled trials; Machine learning; Deep learning; Natural language processing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This scoping review examines the use of artificial intelligence in the automation of biomedical literature survey and analysis, identifying the current state-of-the-art and knowledge gaps. The findings show that despite significant progress, further research is needed to address challenges in deep learning, natural language processing, and the adoption of automation by end-users.
Objective: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a decision-making process based on the conscious and judicious use of the best available scientific evidence. However, the exponential increase in the amount of information currently available likely exceeds the capacity of human-only analysis. In this context, artificial intelligence (AI) and its branches such as machine learning (ML) can be used to facilitate human efforts in analyzing the literature to foster EBM. The present scoping review aimed to examine the use of AI in the automation of biomedical literature survey and analysis with a view to establishing the state-of-the-art and identifying knowledge gaps. Materials and methods: Comprehensive searches of the main databases were performed for articles published up to June 2022 and studies were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted from the included articles and the findings categorized. Results: The total number of records retrieved from the databases was 12,145, of which 273 were included in the review. Classification of the studies according to the use of AI in evaluating the biomedical literature revealed three main application groups, namely assembly of scientific evidence (n = 127; 47%), mining the biomedical literature (n = 112; 41%) and quality analysis (n = 34; 12%). Most studies addressed the preparation of systematic reviews, while articles focusing on the development of guidelines and evidence synthesis were the least frequent. The biggest knowledge gap was identified within the quality analysis group, particularly regarding methods and tools that assess the strength of recommendation and consistency of evidence. Conclusion: Our review shows that, despite significant progress in the automation of biomedical literature surveys and analyses in recent years, intense research is needed to fill knowledge gaps on more difficult aspects of ML, deep learning and natural language processing, and to consolidate the use of automation by end-users (biomedical researchers and healthcare professionals).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available