Journal article icon

Journal article

SyROCCo: enhancing systematic reviews using machine learning

Abstract:
The sheer number of research outputs published every year makes systematic reviewing increasingly time- and resource-intensive. This paper explores the use of machine learning techniques to help navigate the systematic review process. Machine learning has previously been used to reliably “screen” articles for review – that is, identify relevant articles based on reviewers’ inclusion criteria. The application of machine learning techniques to subsequent stages of a review, however, such as data extraction and evidence mapping, is in its infancy. We, therefore, set out to develop a series of tools that would assist in the profiling and analysis of 1952 publications on the theme of “outcomes-based contracting.” Tools were developed for the following tasks: assigning publications into “policy area” categories; identifying and extracting key information for evidence mapping, such as organizations, laws, and geographical information; connecting the evidence base to an existing dataset on the same topic; and identifying subgroups of articles that may share thematic content. An interactive tool using these techniques and a public dataset with their outputs have been released. Our results demonstrate the utility of machine learning techniques to enhance evidence accessibility and analysis within the systematic review processes. These efforts show promise in potentially yielding substantial efficiencies for future systematic reviewing and for broadening their analytical scope. Beyond this, our work suggests that there may be implications for the ease with which policymakers and practitioners can access evidence. While machine learning techniques seem poised to play a significant role in bridging the gap between research and policy by offering innovative ways of gathering, accessing, and analyzing data from systematic reviews, we also highlight their current limitations and the need to exercise caution in their application, particularly given the potential for errors and biases.
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions


Access Document


Files:
Publisher copy:
10.1017/dap.2024.33

Authors


More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
SSD
Department:
Blavatnik School of Government
Role:
Author
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
SSD
Department:
Blavatnik School of Government
Role:
Author
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
SSD
Department:
Blavatnik School of Government
Role:
Author


More from this funder
Funder identifier:
https://ror.org/0592v9m14
Grant:
51962
More from this funder
Funder identifier:
https://ror.org/001aqnf71
Grant:
MR/T040890/1
More from this funder
Funder identifier:
https://ror.org/00jfgrn87
Grant:
2104–06351
More from this funder
Funder identifier:
https://ror.org/037wke960
Grant:
300539
More from this funder
Funder identifier:
https://ror.org/02zqy3981
Grant:
A2683


Publisher:
Cambridge University Press
Journal:
Data & Policy More from this journal
Volume:
6
Article number:
e39
Publication date:
2024-10-14
Acceptance date:
2024-06-19
DOI:
EISSN:
2632-3249


Language:
English
Keywords:
Pubs id:
2013267
Local pid:
pubs:2013267
Deposit date:
2024-07-09

Terms of use



Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP