Automating Document Classification with Distant Supervision to Increase the Efficiency of Systematic Reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.07565v1
• Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 22:45:40 GMT
• Title: Automating Document Classification with Distant Supervision to Increase the Efficiency of Systematic Reviews
• Authors: Xiaoxiao Li, Rabah Al-Zaidy, Amy Zhang, Stefan Baral, Le Bao, C. Lee Giles
• Abstract summary: Well-done systematic reviews are expensive, time-demanding, and labor-intensive. We propose an automatic document classification approach to significantly reduce the effort in reviewing documents.
• Score: 18.33687903724145
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Objective: Systematic reviews of scholarly documents often provide complete and exhaustive summaries of literature relevant to a research question. However, well-done systematic reviews are expensive, time-demanding, and labor-intensive. Here, we propose an automatic document classification approach to significantly reduce the effort in reviewing documents. Methods: We first describe a manual document classification procedure that is used to curate a pertinent training dataset and then propose three classifiers: a keyword-guided method, a cluster analysis-based refined method, and a random forest approach that utilizes a large set of feature tokens. As an example, this approach is used to identify documents studying female sex workers that are assumed to contain content relevant to either HIV or violence. We compare the performance of the three classifiers by cross-validation and conduct a sensitivity analysis on the portion of data utilized in training the model. Results: The random forest approach provides the highest area under the curve (AUC) for both receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and precision/recall (PR). Analyses of precision and recall suggest that random forest could facilitate manually reviewing 20\% of the articles while containing 80\% of the relevant cases. Finally, we found a good classifier could be obtained by using a relatively small training sample size. Conclusions: In sum, the automated procedure of document classification presented here could improve both the precision and efficiency of systematic reviews, as well as facilitating live reviews, where reviews are updated regularly.

Related papers

• JudgeRank: Leveraging Large Language Models for Reasoning-Intensive Reranking [81.88787401178378]
  We introduce JudgeRank, a novel agentic reranker that emulates human cognitive processes when assessing document relevance. We evaluate JudgeRank on the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark, demonstrating substantial performance improvements over first-stage retrieval methods. In addition, JudgeRank performs on par with fine-tuned state-of-the-art rerankers on the popular BEIR benchmark, validating its zero-shot generalization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T18:43:12Z)
• Exploring Information Retrieval Landscapes: An Investigation of a Novel Evaluation Techniques and Comparative Document Splitting Methods [0.0]
  In this study, the structured nature of textbooks, the conciseness of articles, and the narrative complexity of novels are shown to require distinct retrieval strategies. A novel evaluation technique is introduced, utilizing an open-source model to generate a comprehensive dataset of question-and-answer pairs. The evaluation employs weighted scoring metrics, including SequenceMatcher, BLEU, METEOR, and BERT Score, to assess the system's accuracy and relevance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-13T02:08:47Z)
• CovScore: Evaluation of Multi-Document Abstractive Title Set Generation [16.516381474175986]
  CovScore is an automatic reference-less methodology for evaluating thematic title sets. We propose a novel methodology that decomposes quality into five main metrics along different aspects of evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-24T16:14:15Z)
• Zero-shot Generative Large Language Models for Systematic Review Screening Automation [55.403958106416574]
  This study investigates the effectiveness of using zero-shot large language models for automatic screening. We evaluate the effectiveness of eight different LLMs and investigate a calibration technique that uses a predefined recall threshold.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T01:54:08Z)
• Prefer to Classify: Improving Text Classifiers via Auxiliary Preference Learning [76.43827771613127]
  In this paper, we investigate task-specific preferences between pairs of input texts as a new alternative way for such auxiliary data annotation. We propose a novel multi-task learning framework, called prefer-to-classify (P2C), which can enjoy the cooperative effect of learning both the given classification task and the auxiliary preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T04:04:47Z)
• Document Provenance and Authentication through Authorship Classification [5.2545206693029884]
  We propose an ensemble-based text-processing framework for the classification of single and multi-authored documents. The proposed framework incorporates several state-of-the-art text classification algorithms. The framework is evaluated on a large-scale benchmark dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-02T12:26:03Z)
• Using Active Learning Methods to Strategically Select Essays for Automated Scoring [0.0]
  The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate three active learning methods. The three active learning methods are the uncertainty-based, the topological-based, and the hybrid method. All three methods produced strong results, with the topological-based method producing the most efficient classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-02T12:46:10Z)
• Neural Rankers for Effective Screening Prioritisation in Medical Systematic Review Literature Search [31.797257552928336]
  We apply several pre-trained language models to the systematic review document ranking task. An empirical analysis compares how effective neural methods compare to traditional methods for this task. Our results show that BERT-based rankers outperform the current state-of-the-art screening prioritisation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-18T05:26:40Z)
• GERE: Generative Evidence Retrieval for Fact Verification [57.78768817972026]
  We propose GERE, the first system that retrieves evidences in a generative fashion. The experimental results on the FEVER dataset show that GERE achieves significant improvements over the state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-12T03:49:35Z)
• Integrating Semantics and Neighborhood Information with Graph-Driven Generative Models for Document Retrieval [51.823187647843945]
  In this paper, we encode the neighborhood information with a graph-induced Gaussian distribution, and propose to integrate the two types of information with a graph-driven generative model. Under the approximation, we prove that the training objective can be decomposed into terms involving only singleton or pairwise documents, enabling the model to be trained as efficiently as uncorrelated ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-27T11:29:03Z)
• PONE: A Novel Automatic Evaluation Metric for Open-Domain Generative Dialogue Systems [48.99561874529323]
  There are three kinds of automatic methods to evaluate the open-domain generative dialogue systems. Due to the lack of systematic comparison, it is not clear which kind of metrics are more effective. We propose a novel and feasible learning-based metric that can significantly improve the correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-06T04:36:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.