Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

A shared latent space matrix factorisation method for recommending new trial evidence for systematic review updates

Published: 01 March 2018 Publication History

Graphical abstract

Display Omitted

Highlights

Trial registrations are underutilised in supporting systematic review updates.
Matrix factorisation is used to rank new trials using trials from published reviews.
Matrix factorisation and document similarity outperform manual search construction.
The proposed method could replace searching and improve screening efficiency.
The proposed method may complement methods applied to bibliographic databases.

Abstract

Background

Clinical trial registries can be used to monitor the production of trial evidence and signal when systematic reviews become out of date. However, this use has been limited to date due to the extensive manual review required to search for and screen relevant trial registrations. Our aim was to evaluate a new method that could partially automate the identification of trial registrations that may be relevant for systematic review updates.

Materials and methods

We identified 179 systematic reviews of drug interventions for type 2 diabetes, which included 537 clinical trials that had registrations in ClinicalTrials.gov. Text from the trial registrations were used as features directly, or transformed using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) or Principal Component Analysis (PCA). We tested a novel matrix factorisation approach that uses a shared latent space to learn how to rank relevant trial registrations for each systematic review, comparing the performance to document similarity to rank relevant trial registrations. The two approaches were tested on a holdout set of the newest trials from the set of type 2 diabetes systematic reviews and an unseen set of 141 clinical trial registrations from 17 updated systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The performance was measured by the number of relevant registrations found after examining 100 candidates (recall@100) and the median rank of relevant registrations in the ranked candidate lists.

Results

The matrix factorisation approach outperformed the document similarity approach with a median rank of 59 (of 128,392 candidate registrations in ClinicalTrials.gov) and recall@100 of 60.9% using LDA feature representation, compared to a median rank of 138 and recall@100 of 42.8% in the document similarity baseline. In the second set of systematic reviews and their updates, the highest performing approach used document similarity and gave a median rank of 67 (recall@100 of 62.9%).

Conclusions

A shared latent space matrix factorisation method was useful for ranking trial registrations to reduce the manual workload associated with finding relevant trials for systematic review updates. The results suggest that the approach could be used as part of a semi-automated pipeline for monitoring potentially new evidence for inclusion in a review update.

References

[1]
K.G. Shojania, M. Sampson, M.T. Ansari, J. Ji, S. Doucette, D. Moher, How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis, Ann. Intern. Med. 147 (2007) 224–233.
[2]
W. Jaidee, D. Moher, M. Laopaiboon, Time to update and quantitative changes in the results of cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews, PLoS One 5 (2010) e11553.
[3]
C. Garritty, A. Tsertsvadze, A.C. Tricco, M. Sampson, D. Moher, Updating systematic reviews: an international survey, PLoS One 5 (2010) e9914.
[4]
K. Peterson, M.S. McDonagh, R. Fu, Decisions to update comparative drug effectiveness reviews vary based on type of new evidence, J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64 (2011) 977–984.
[5]
M. Chung, S.J. Newberry, M.T. Ansari, W.W. Yu, H. Wu, J. Lee, et al., Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic reviews, J. Clin. Epidemiol. 65 (2012) 660–668.
[6]
P. Pattanittum, M. Laopaiboon, D. Moher, P. Lumbiganon, C. Ngamjarus, A comparison of statistical methods for identifying out-of-date systematic reviews, PLoS One 7 (2012) e48894.
[7]
Y. Takwoingi, S. Hopewell, D. Tovey, A. Sutton, A multicomponent decision tool for prioritising the updating of systematic reviews, BMJ 347 (2013) f7191.
[8]
N. Ahmadzai, S.J. Newberry, M.A. Maglione, A. Tsertsvadze, M.T. Ansari, S. Hempel, et al., A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews, Syst. Rev. 2 (2013) 104.
[9]
P.G. Shekelle, A. Motala, B. Johnsen, S.J. Newberry, Assessment of a method to detect signals for updating systematic reviews, Syst. Rev. 3 (2014) 13.
[10]
P. Garner, S. Hopewell, J. Chandler, H. MacLehose, E.A. Akl, J. Beyene, et al., When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist, BMJ 354 (2016) i3507.
[11]
I. Chalmers, P. Glasziou, Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence, Lancet 374 (2009) 86–89.
[12]
K. Dwan, C. Gamble, P.R. Williamson, J.J. Kirkham, Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—an updated review, PLoS One 8 (2013) e66844.
[13]
K. Dickersin, The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence, JAMA 263 (1990) 1385–1389.
[14]
R. Bashir, F.T. Bourgeois, A.G. Dunn, A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results, Syst. Rev. 6 (2017) 123.
[15]
A. O’Mara-Eves, J. Thomas, J. McNaught, M. Miwa, S. Ananiadou, Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches, Syst. Rev. 4 (2015) 5.
[16]
M. Baudard, A. Yavchitz, P. Ravaud, E. Perrodeau, I. Boutron, Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses, BMJ 356 (2017) j448.
[17]
J.H. Elliott, T. Turner, O. Clavisi, J. Thomas, J.P.T. Higgins, C. Mavergames, et al., Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap, PLoS Med. 11 (2014) e1001603.
[18]
G. Tsafnat, P. Glasziou, M.K. Choong, A.G. Dunn, F. Galgani, E. Coiera, Systematic review automation technologies, Syst. Rev. 3 (2014) 74.
[19]
G. Tsafnat, A.G. Dunn, P. Glasziou, E. Coiera, The automation of systematic reviews, BMJ 346 (2013) f139.
[20]
A.M. Cohen, W.R. Hersh, K. Peterson, P.-Y. Yen, Reducing workload in systematic review preparation using automated citation classification, J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 13 (2006) 206–219.
[21]
Y. Aphinyanaphongs, I. Tsamardinos, A. Statnikov, D. Hardin, C.F. Aliferis, Text categorization models for high-quality article retrieval in internal medicine, J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 12 (2005) 207–216.
[22]
H. Kim, J. Bian, J. Mostafa, S. Jonnalagadda, Fiol G. Del, Feasibility of extracting key elements from ClinicalTrials.gov to support clinicians’ patient care decisions, AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2016 (2016) 705–714.
[23]
B.K. Olorisade, P. Brereton, P. Andras, Reproducibility of studies on text mining for citation screening in systematic reviews: evaluation and checklist, J. Biomed. Inform. 73 (2017) 1–13.
[24]
M. Miwa, J. Thomas, A. O’Mara-Eves, S. Ananiadou, Reducing systematic review workload through certainty-based screening, J. Biomed. Inform. 51 (2014) 242–253.
[25]
B.C. Wallace, T.A. Trikalinos, J. Lau, C. Brodley, C.H. Schmid, Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews, BMC Bioinf. 11 (2010) 55.
[26]
K. Hashimoto, G. Kontonatsios, M. Miwa, S. Ananiadou, Topic detection using paragraph vectors to support active learning in systematic reviews, J. Biomed. Inform. 62 (2016) 59–65.
[27]
V. Huser, J. Cimino, Linking ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to track results of interventional human clinical trials, PLoS One 8 (2013) e68409.
[28]
V. Huser, J. Cimino, Precision and negative predictive value of links between ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed, AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. (2012) 400–408.
[29]
R. Bashir, A.G. Dunn, Systematic review protocol assessing the processes for linking clinical trial registries and their published results, BMJ Open 6 (2016) e013048.
[30]
T. Hao, A. Rusanov, M.R. Boland, C. Weng, Clustering clinical trials with similar eligibility criteria features, J. Biomed. Inform. 52 (2014) 112–120.
[31]
C. Weng, A. Yaman, K. Lin, Z. He, Trend and network analysis of common eligibility features for cancer trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, in: Proc of the International Conference on Smart Health (ICSH), Springer International Publishing, Beijing, China, 2014, pp. 130–141.
[32]
M.R. Boland, R. Miotto, J. Gao, C. Weng, Feasibility of feature-based indexing, clustering, and search of clinical trials. A case study of breast cancer trials from ClinicalTrials.gov, Methods Inf. Med. 52 (2013) 382–394.
[33]
Z. He, S. Carini, I. Sim, C. Weng, Visual aggregate analysis of eligibility features of clinical trials, J. Biomed. Inform. 54 (2015) 241–255.
[34]
H. Ma, C. Weng, Prediction of black box warning by mining patterns of convergent focus shift in clinical trial study populations using linked public data, J. Biomed. Inform. 60 (2016) 132–144.
[35]
M. Jamali, M. Ester, A matrix factorization technique with trust propagation for recommendation in social networks, in: The 4th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, ACM New York, NY, USA, Barcelona, Spain, 2010, pp. 135–142.
[36]
Y. Koren, R. Bell, C. Volinsky, Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems, Computer 42 (2009).
[37]
A.K. Menon, C. Elkan, Link prediction via matrix factorization, The European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases ECML PKDD 2011 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011.
[38]
R.M. Bell, Y. Koren, C. Volinsky, Modeling relationships at multiple scales to improve accuracy of large recommender systems, in: Proc of the 13th ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (SIGKDD), ACM New York, California, USA, 2007, pp. 95–104.
[39]
Y. Koren, Factorization meets the neighborhood: a multifaceted collaborative filtering model, in: Proc of the 14th ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (SIGKDD), ACM New York, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2008, pp. 426–434.
[40]
G. Guo, J. Zhang, N. Yorke-Smith, TrustSVD: collaborative filtering with both the explicit and implicit influence of user trust and of item ratings, in: The 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, Austin, Texas, 2015, pp. 123–129.
[41]
F. Porter, An algorithm for suffix stripping, Read. Inform. Ret. (1997) 313–316.
[42]
S.P. Crain, K. Zhou, S.-H. Yang, H. Zha, Dimensionality reduction and topic modeling: from latent semantic indexing to latent Dirichlet allocation and beyond, in: Mining Text Data, Springer, US, 2012, pp. 129–161.
[43]
D.M. Blei, A.Y. Ng, M.I. Jordan, Latent Dirichlet allocation, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3 (2003) 993–1022.
[44]
Y. Lu, Q.Z. Mei, C.X. Zhai, Investigating task performance of probabilistic topic models: an empirical study of PLSA and LDA, Inf. Ret. 14 (2011) 178–203.
[45]
C.W. Belter, A relevance ranking method for citation-based search results, Scientometrics 112 (2017) 731–746.
[46]
P.G. Shekelle, K. Shetty, S. Newberry, M. Maglione, A. Motala, Machine learning versus standard techniques for updating searches for systematic reviews: a diagnostic accuracy study, Ann. Intern. Med. 167 (2017) 213–215.
[47]
Maaten Lvd, G. Hinton, Visualizing data using t-SNE, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 9 (2008) 2579–2605.
[48]
J. Thomas, Citation analysis may well have a role to play in study identification, but more evaluation and system development are required, J. Clin. Epidemiol. (2017),. (in press).

Index Terms

  1. A shared latent space matrix factorisation method for recommending new trial evidence for systematic review updates
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

          Information & Contributors

          Information

          Published In

          cover image Journal of Biomedical Informatics
          Journal of Biomedical Informatics  Volume 79, Issue C
          Mar 2018
          152 pages

          Publisher

          Elsevier Science

          San Diego, CA, United States

          Publication History

          Published: 01 March 2018

          Author Tags

          1. Systematic reviews
          2. Clinical trials
          3. Information retrieval
          4. Matrix factorisation

          Qualifiers

          • Research-article

          Contributors

          Other Metrics

          Bibliometrics & Citations

          Bibliometrics

          Article Metrics

          • 0
            Total Citations
          • 0
            Total Downloads
          • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
          Reflects downloads up to 23 Nov 2024

          Other Metrics

          Citations

          View Options

          View options

          Login options

          Media

          Figures

          Other

          Tables

          Share

          Share

          Share this Publication link

          Share on social media