These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

237 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34039433)

  • 21. Semi-automating abstract screening with a natural language model pretrained on biomedical literature.
    Ng SH; Teow KL; Ang GY; Tan WS; Hum A
    Syst Rev; 2023 Sep; 12(1):172. PubMed ID: 37740227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews.
    Shemilt I; Simon A; Hollands GJ; Marteau TM; Ogilvie D; O'Mara-Eves A; Kelly MP; Thomas J
    Res Synth Methods; 2014 Mar; 5(1):31-49. PubMed ID: 26054024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Screening nonrandomized studies for medical systematic reviews: a comparative study of classifiers.
    Bekhuis T; Demner-Fushman D
    Artif Intell Med; 2012 Jul; 55(3):197-207. PubMed ID: 22677493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Machine learning reduced workload with minimal risk of missing studies: development and evaluation of a randomized controlled trial classifier for Cochrane Reviews.
    Thomas J; McDonald S; Noel-Storr A; Shemilt I; Elliott J; Mavergames C; Marshall IJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 May; 133():140-151. PubMed ID: 33171275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The semi-automation of title and abstract screening: a retrospective exploration of ways to leverage Abstrackr's relevance predictions in systematic and rapid reviews.
    Gates A; Gates M; Sebastianski M; Guitard S; Elliott SA; Hartling L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Jun; 20(1):139. PubMed ID: 32493228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Increasing comprehensiveness and reducing workload in a systematic review of complex interventions using automated machine learning.
    Uthman OA; Court R; Enderby J; Al-Khudairy L; Nduka C; Mistry H; Melendez-Torres GJ; Taylor-Phillips S; Clarke A
    Health Technol Assess; 2022 Nov; ():. PubMed ID: 36562494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Research Screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automate abstract screening for systematic reviews.
    Chai KEK; Lines RLJ; Gucciardi DF; Ng L
    Syst Rev; 2021 Apr; 10(1):93. PubMed ID: 33795003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. SWIFT-Review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review.
    Howard BE; Phillips J; Miller K; Tandon A; Mav D; Shah MR; Holmgren S; Pelch KE; Walker V; Rooney AA; Macleod M; Shah RR; Thayer K
    Syst Rev; 2016 May; 5():87. PubMed ID: 27216467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Automated screening of research studies for systematic reviews using study characteristics.
    Tsafnat G; Glasziou P; Karystianis G; Coiera E
    Syst Rev; 2018 Apr; 7(1):64. PubMed ID: 29695296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. In-depth evaluation of machine learning methods for semi-automating article screening in a systematic review of mechanistic literature.
    Kebede MM; Le Cornet C; Fortner RT
    Res Synth Methods; 2023 Mar; 14(2):156-172. PubMed ID: 35798691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Unsupervised title and abstract screening for systematic review: a retrospective case-study using topic modelling methodology.
    Natukunda A; Muchene LK
    Syst Rev; 2023 Jan; 12(1):1. PubMed ID: 36597132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. An evaluation of DistillerSR's machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening - impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes.
    Hamel C; Kelly SE; Thavorn K; Rice DB; Wells GA; Hutton B
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Oct; 20(1):256. PubMed ID: 33059590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Twister: A Tool for Reducing Screening Time in Systematic Literature Reviews.
    Kreiner K; Hayn D; Schreier G
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2018; 255():5-9. PubMed ID: 30306896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 'Clustering' documents automatically to support scoping reviews of research: a case study.
    Stansfield C; Thomas J; Kavanagh J
    Res Synth Methods; 2013 Sep; 4(3):230-41. PubMed ID: 26053843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Technology-assisted title and abstract screening for systematic reviews: a retrospective evaluation of the Abstrackr machine learning tool.
    Gates A; Johnson C; Hartling L
    Syst Rev; 2018 Mar; 7(1):45. PubMed ID: 29530097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Performance of a Machine Learning Classifier of Knee MRI Reports in Two Large Academic Radiology Practices: A Tool to Estimate Diagnostic Yield.
    Hassanpour S; Langlotz CP; Amrhein TJ; Befera NT; Lungren MP
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Apr; 208(4):750-753. PubMed ID: 28140627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Sensitivity and specificity of alternative screening methods for systematic reviews using text mining tools.
    Li J; Kabouji J; Bouhadoun S; Tanveer S; Filion KB; Gore G; Josephson CB; Kwon CS; Jette N; Bauer PR; Day GS; Subota A; Roberts JI; Lukmanji S; Sauro K; Ismaili AA; Rahmani F; Chelabi K; Kerdougli Y; Seulami NM; Soumana A; Khalil S; Maynard N; Keezer MR
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2023 Oct; 162():72-80. PubMed ID: 37506951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Error rates of human reviewers during abstract screening in systematic reviews.
    Wang Z; Nayfeh T; Tetzlaff J; O'Blenis P; Murad MH
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(1):e0227742. PubMed ID: 31935267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Evaluation of a semi-automated data extraction tool for public health literature-based reviews: Dextr.
    Walker VR; Schmitt CP; Wolfe MS; Nowak AJ; Kulesza K; Williams AR; Shin R; Cohen J; Burch D; Stout MD; Shipkowski KA; Rooney AA
    Environ Int; 2022 Jan; 159():107025. PubMed ID: 34920276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. An efficient strategy allowed English-speaking reviewers to identify foreign-language articles eligible for a systematic review.
    Busse JW; Bruno P; Malik K; Connell G; Torrance D; Ngo T; Kirmayr K; Avrahami D; Riva JJ; Ebrahim S; Struijs PA; Brunarski D; Burnie SJ; LeBlanc F; Coomes EA; Steenstra IA; Slack T; Rodine R; Jim J; Montori VM; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 May; 67(5):547-53. PubMed ID: 24613496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.