Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/73351
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAymeric Blaizoten_US
dc.contributor.authorSajesh K. Veettilen_US
dc.contributor.authorPantakarn Saidoungen_US
dc.contributor.authorCarlos Francisco Moreno-Garciaen_US
dc.contributor.authorNirmalie Wiratungaen_US
dc.contributor.authorMagaly Aceves-Martinsen_US
dc.contributor.authorNai Ming Laien_US
dc.contributor.authorNathorn Chaiyakunapruken_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-27T08:39:54Z-
dc.date.available2022-05-27T08:39:54Z-
dc.date.issued2022-05-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn17592887en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85125397472en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1002/jrsm.1553en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85125397472&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/73351-
dc.description.abstractThe exponential increase in published articles makes a thorough and expedient review of literature increasingly challenging. This review delineated automated tools and platforms that employ artificial intelligence (AI) approaches and evaluated the reported benefits and challenges in using such methods. A search was conducted in 4 databases (Medline, Embase, CDSR, and Epistemonikos) up to April 2021 for systematic reviews and other related reviews implementing AI methods. To be included, the review must use any form of AI method, including machine learning, deep learning, neural network, or any other applications used to enable the full or semi-autonomous performance of one or more stages in the development of evidence synthesis. Twelve reviews were included, using nine different tools to implement 15 different AI methods. Eleven methods were used in the screening stages of the review (73%). The rest were divided: two in data extraction (13%) and two in risk of bias assessment (13%). The ambiguous benefits of the data extractions, combined with the reported advantages from 10 reviews, indicating that AI platforms have taken hold with varying success in evidence synthesis. However, the results are qualified by the reliance on the self-reporting of the review authors. Extensive human validation still appears required at this stage in implementing AI methods, though further evaluation is required to define the overall contribution of such platforms in enhancing efficiency and quality in evidence synthesis.en_US
dc.subjectSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.titleUsing artificial intelligence methods for systematic review in health sciences: A systematic reviewen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleResearch Synthesis Methodsen_US
article.volume13en_US
article.stream.affiliationsTaylor's University Malaysiaen_US
article.stream.affiliationsThe Rowett Instituteen_US
article.stream.affiliationsMonash University Malaysiaen_US
article.stream.affiliationsVA Medical Centeren_US
article.stream.affiliationsUniversity of Utah Healthen_US
article.stream.affiliationsRobert Gordon Universityen_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.