TY - JOUR
T1 - Data Extraction and Synthesis in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Corpus for Automating and Evaluating the Process
AU - Norman, Christopher
AU - Leeflang, Mariska
AU - Névéol, Aurélie
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are critical for obtaining accurate estimates of diagnostic test accuracy, yet these require extracting information buried in free text articles, an often laborious process. OBJECTIVE: We create a dataset describing the data extraction and synthesis processes in 63 DTA systematic reviews, and demonstrate its utility by using it to replicate the data synthesis in the original reviews. METHOD: We construct our dataset using a custom automated extraction pipeline complemented with manual extraction, verification, and post-editing. We evaluate using manual assessment by two annotators and by comparing against data extracted from source files. RESULTS: The constructed dataset contains 5,848 test results for 1,354 diagnostic tests from 1,738 diagnostic studies. We observe an extraction error rate of 0.06-0.3%. CONCLUSIONS: This constitutes the first dataset describing the later stages of the DTA systematic review process, and is intended to be useful for automating or evaluating the process.
AB - BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are critical for obtaining accurate estimates of diagnostic test accuracy, yet these require extracting information buried in free text articles, an often laborious process. OBJECTIVE: We create a dataset describing the data extraction and synthesis processes in 63 DTA systematic reviews, and demonstrate its utility by using it to replicate the data synthesis in the original reviews. METHOD: We construct our dataset using a custom automated extraction pipeline complemented with manual extraction, verification, and post-editing. We evaluate using manual assessment by two annotators and by comparing against data extracted from source files. RESULTS: The constructed dataset contains 5,848 test results for 1,354 diagnostic tests from 1,738 diagnostic studies. We observe an extraction error rate of 0.06-0.3%. CONCLUSIONS: This constitutes the first dataset describing the later stages of the DTA systematic review process, and is intended to be useful for automating or evaluating the process.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85062382496&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30815124
M3 - Article
C2 - 30815124
SN - 1559-4076
VL - 2018
SP - 817
EP - 826
JO - AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium
JF - AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium
ER -