ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2026
Application of Machine Learning Classifiers in Rapid Reviews for Health Research: A Case Example Using EPPI-Reviewer.
Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Rapid reviews aim to deliver timely evidence for decision-makers when full systematic reviews are not possible or practical. Efficient selection of studies is challenging when questions are complex, or the evidence base is diffuse. Methods: In a rapid review on trial informativeness, our team used EPPI-Reviewer, a web-based systematic review platform that supports document management, screening, and machine learning prioritization, to conduct title and abstract screening. We developed a machine learning classifier model within the platform to rank records by predicted relevance based on coding structures aligned with predefined criteria. Results: The classifier model correctly concentrated relevant studies in the higher probability bands, which allowed most eligible records to be identified early. As screening progressed to lower probability bands, the number of newly identified records declined, indicating effective prioritization. Real-time collaboration and a clear audit trail supported consistent decision-making across reviewers. Limitations included the initial effort to train the model and potential subscription costs. Conclusion: Classifier assisted screening in EPPI-Reviewer improved the feasibility of conducting a rapid review on a complex topic within a limited timeframe. Although the risk of missed citations remains, this is inherent to any review method. With appropriate training and support, classifier models and platforms like EPPI-Reviewer can enhance both efficiency and transparency in rapid evidence synthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.