Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39289403›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Text classification models for assessing the completeness of randomized controlled trial publications based on CONSORT reporting guidelines.

Lan Jiang, Mengfei Lan, Joe D Menke, Colby J Vorland, Halil Kilicoglu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lan JiangSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 501 E Daniel Street, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA.
Mengfei LanSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 501 E Daniel Street, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA.
Joe D MenkeSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 501 E Daniel Street, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA.
Colby J VorlandSchool of Public Health, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Halil KilicogluSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 501 E Daniel Street, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA. halil@illinois.edu.

Funding

Computational Methods, Resources, and Tools to Assess Transparency and Rigor of Randomized Clinical TrialsR01LM014079 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI KILICOGLU, HALIL, MAYO-WILSON, EVAN · 2022 to 2025
$1.3M
NIH HHS R01LM014079NLM NIH HHS R01 LM014079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Complete and transparent reporting of randomized controlled trial publications (RCTs) is essential for assessing their credibility. We aimed to develop text classification models for determining whether RCT publications report CONSORT checklist items. Using a corpus annotated with 37 fine-grained CONSORT items, we trained sentence classification models (PubMedBERT fine-tuning, BioGPT fine-tuning, and in-context learning with GPT-4) and compared their performance. We assessed the impact of data augmentation methods (Easy Data Augmentation (EDA), UMLS-EDA, text generation and rephrasing with GPT-4) on model performance. We also fine-tuned section-specific PubMedBERT models (e.g., Methods) to evaluate whether they could improve performance compared to the single full model. We performed 5-fold cross-validation and report precision, recall, F

Indexed as

ChecklistRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicGuidelines as TopicHumansCONSORTReporting guidelinesReporting transparencySentence classificationText mining

Identifiers

PMID39289403
PMCPMC11408668

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.