
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
Background: Systematic reviews are critical for obtaining accurate estimates of diagnostic test accuracy, yet theserequire extracting information buried in free text articles, which is often laborious. Objective: We create a datasetdescribing the data extraction and synthesis processes in 63 DTA systematic reviews, and demonstrate its utility byusing it to replicate the data synthesis in the original reviews. Method: We construct our dataset using a customautomated extraction pipeline complemented with manual extraction, verification, and post-editing. We evaluate us-ing manual assessment by two annotators and by comparing against data extracted from source files. Results: Theconstructed dataset contains 5,848 test results for 1,354 diagnostic tests from 1,738 diagnostic studies. We observe anextraction error rate of 0.06–0.3%. Conclusions: This constitutes the first dataset describing the later stages of theDTA systematic review process, and is intended to be useful for automating or evaluating the process.
International audience
[INFO.INFO-CL] Computer Science [cs]/Computation and Language [cs.CL], Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Datasets as Topic, Information Storage and Retrieval, [INFO]Computer Science [cs], [INFO] Computer Science [cs], [INFO.INFO-CL]Computer Science [cs]/Computation and Language [cs.CL], Systematic Reviews as Topic
[INFO.INFO-CL] Computer Science [cs]/Computation and Language [cs.CL], Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Datasets as Topic, Information Storage and Retrieval, [INFO]Computer Science [cs], [INFO] Computer Science [cs], [INFO.INFO-CL]Computer Science [cs]/Computation and Language [cs.CL], Systematic Reviews as Topic
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 6 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
views | 9 | |
downloads | 3 |