Machine Learning Information Retrieval and Summarisation to Support Systematic Review on Outcomes Based Contracting
Abstract
As academic literature proliferates, traditional review methods are increasingly challenged by the sheer volume and diversity of available research. This article presents a study that aims to address these challenges by enhancing the efficiency and scope of systematic reviews in the social sciences through advanced machine learning (ML) and natural language processing (NLP) tools. In particular, we focus on automating stages within the systematic reviewing process that are time-intensive and repetitive for human annotators and which lend themselves to immediate scalability through tools such as information retrieval and summarisation guided by expert advice. The article concludes with a summary of lessons learnt regarding the integrated approach towards systematic reviews and future directions for improvement, including explainability.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Knowledge Management Perspective of Generative Artificial Intelligence
- Navigating Generative Artificial Intelligence Promises and Perils for Knowledge and Creative Work
- Characterizing the evolving research on enterprise content management
- Large language models and multimodal foundation models for precision oncology
- From Generative AI to Extended Reality: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Challenges, Opportunities, and Future of Educational Computing
- Generative Artificial Intelligence: A New Engine for Advancing Environmental Science and Engineering
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.