Deprecated: $wgMWOAuthSharedUserIDs=false is deprecated, set $wgMWOAuthSharedUserIDs=true, $wgMWOAuthSharedUserSource='local' instead [Called from MediaWiki\HookContainer\HookContainer::run in /var/www/html/w/includes/HookContainer/HookContainer.php at line 135] in /var/www/html/w/includes/Debug/MWDebug.php on line 372
COVID-19 evidence syntheses with artificial intelligence: an empirical study of systematic reviews - MaRDI portal

Deprecated: Use of MediaWiki\Skin\SkinTemplate::injectLegacyMenusIntoPersonalTools was deprecated in Please make sure Skin option menus contains `user-menu` (and possibly `notifications`, `user-interface-preferences`, `user-page`) 1.46. [Called from MediaWiki\Skin\SkinTemplate::getPortletsTemplateData in /var/www/html/w/includes/Skin/SkinTemplate.php at line 691] in /var/www/html/w/includes/Debug/MWDebug.php on line 372

Deprecated: Use of QuickTemplate::(get/html/text/haveData) with parameter `personal_urls` was deprecated in MediaWiki Use content_navigation instead. [Called from MediaWiki\Skin\QuickTemplate::get in /var/www/html/w/includes/Skin/QuickTemplate.php at line 131] in /var/www/html/w/includes/Debug/MWDebug.php on line 372

COVID-19 evidence syntheses with artificial intelligence: an empirical study of systematic reviews

From MaRDI portal



DOI10.5281/zenodo.5606404Zenodo5606404MaRDI QIDQ6697349

Dataset published at Zenodo repository.

Author name not available (Why is that?)

Publication date: 24 May 2022



Description

Objectives: A rapidly developing scenario like a pandemic requires the prompt production of high-quality systematic reviews, which can be automated using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. We evaluated the application of AI tools in COVID-19 evidence syntheses. Study design: After prospective registration of the review protocol, we automated the download of all open-access COVID-19 systematic reviews in the COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence database, indexed them for AI-related keywords, and located those that used AI tools. We compared their journals' JCR Impact Factor, citations per month, screening workloads, completion times (from pre-registration to preprint or submission to a journal) and AMSTAR-2 methodology assessments (maximum score 13 points) with a set of publication date matched control reviews without AI. Results: Of the 3999 COVID-19 reviews, 28 (0.7%, 95% CI 0.47-1.03%) made use of AI. On average, compared to controls (n=64), AI reviews were published in journals with higher Impact Factors (median 8.9 vs 3.5, P0.001), and screened more abstracts per author (302.2 vs 140.3, P=0.009) and per included study (189.0 vs 365.8, P0.001) while inspecting less full texts per author (5.3 vs 14.0, P=0.005). No differences were found in citation counts (0.5 vs 0.6, P=0.600), inspected full texts per included study (3.8 vs 3.4, P=0.481), completion times (74.0 vs 123.0, P=0.205) or AMSTAR-2 (7.5 vs 6.3, P=0.119). Conclusion: AI was an underutilized tool in COVID-19 systematic reviews. Its usage, compared to reviews without AI, was associated with more efficient screening of literature and higher publication impact. There is scope for the application of AI in automating systematic reviews.






This page was built for dataset: COVID-19 evidence syntheses with artificial intelligence: an empirical study of systematic reviews

Retrieved from "https://mardi.schubotz.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_evidence_syntheses_with_artificial_intelligence:_an_empirical_study_of_systematic_reviews&oldid=44853763"
Powered by MediaWiki