scholarly journals Linked data approach for selection process automation in systematic reviews

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Tomassetti ◽  
G. Rizzo ◽  
A. Vetro ◽  
L. Ardito ◽  
M. Torchiano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Linked Data ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Process Automation

Setting-to-Work a State-of-the-Art Solid Waste Characterisation Facility at JRC Ispra

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilpo Huhtiniemi ◽  
Massimo Anselmi ◽  
Gary Vassallo ◽  
Flaviano Bruno ◽  
Giulio Panini
Keyword(s):  
State Of The Art ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Nuclear Research ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Process Automation ◽  
Contractor Selection ◽  
Industrial Environment ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Significant Interest ◽  
Waste Characterisation

This paper reviews the experience gained when setting-to-work a state-of-the-art waste characterisation facility that will be a fundamental element in the JRC’s strategy to characterise radioactive wastes originating from four decades of nuclear research activities conducted at the Ispra Site. In a previous paper at ICEM ’01, the authors described the specifications for the principal components of a Waste Characterisation System (WCS) and the ensuing contractor selection process via a public tendering procedure. The present paper has a broader perspective by addressing the whole waste characterisation facility of which the WCS forms a part. In the opening section, the main constituents of the facility are reviewed, and their optimised integration to respect emerging Italian standards, conventional safety principles, ALARA and operational efficiency, are discussed. The second part of the paper examines the analyses required for the licensing of the waste characterisation facility. Finally, the paper concludes with a summary of the lessons learned from the setting-to-work phase of the facility. Since the facility combines a state-of-the-art NDA solution with comprehensive process automation in an industrial environment, the experience is expected to be of significant interest to the radioactive waste management community.

scholarly journals Automation of systematic reviews through artificial neural network modeling and machine learning: A methodological protocol report (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Ferraz Ferreira Sr ◽  
Marcos Gonçalves Quiles Sr ◽  
Tiago Santana Nazare Sr ◽  
Solange Oliveira Rezende ◽  
Marcelo Demarzo Sr
Keyword(s):  
Neural Network ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Artificial Neural Network ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Automated System ◽  
Neural Network Modeling ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Artificial Neural

UNSTRUCTURED Background: A systematic review can be defined as a summary of the evidence found in the literature via a systematic search in the available scientific databases. One of the steps involved is article selection, which is typically a laborious task. Machine learning and artificial intelligence can be important tools in automating this step, thus aiding researchers. The aim of this study is to create models based on an artificial neural network system and machine learning to automate the article selection process in systematic reviews in the area of Mindfulness. Methods: The study will be performed using R programming software. The system will consist of six main steps: 1) data import; 2) exclusion of duplicates; 3) exclusion of nonarticles; 4) article reading and model creation using artificial neural networks; 5) comparison of the models; and 6) system sharing. We will choose the 10 most relevant systematic reviews published in the fields of “Mindfulness and Health Promotion” and “Orthopedics and Traumatology” (control group) to serve as a test of the effectiveness of the article selection. The final results for these two fields will be compared. Conclusion: An automated system with a modifiable sensitivity will be created to select scientific articles in systematic review that can be expanded to various fields. We will disseminate our results and models through the “Observatory of Evidence” in public health, an open and online platform that will assist researchers in systematic reviews.

scholarly journals RPA Vendor Evaluation and Selection using AHP and Kano Model

2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (9) ◽  
pp. 6230-6243
Author(s):  
Aishwarya Banerjee, Shilpa Parkhi
Keyword(s):  
Industry 4.0 ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
Vendor Selection ◽  
Process Automation ◽  
Kano Model ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Implementation Project ◽  
Short Span ◽  
Efficiency Improve

Robotic Process Automation (RPA) as a technology has gained momentum due to the onset of Industry 4.0. RPA is considered to be the simplest forms of automation in which, typically, the human actions are mimicked without taking into account the complex judgements associated with it. Hence, RPA is deemed fit for the rule-based tasks which are highly repetitive, bulky and are error-prone. Traditionally, organizations looking to increase its operations efficiency improve workforce utilisation, turn to RPA. With the shift in working pattern enforced by COVID-19, RPA adoption is no more a luxury, but a necessity. In a short span of time, the number of RPA vendors, that is the developers and providers of RPA software have significantly increased and due to current demands of RPA, it is expected to grow further. This increase in choices makes the vendor selection part of any RPA Implementation Project highly complex and confusing. Keeping in mind the significance of the vendor selection process, various methods of RPA Vendor Selection have been previously proposed but it is still evolving along with the changing needs of the Businesses. This Research paper aims to propose a standard model using Kano Model and Analytic Hierarch Process (AHP) such that it can be customized during each new RPA implementation project without compromising on the basic structure and method for evaluation.

scholarly journals Systematic reviews as object to study relevance assessment processes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingeborg Jäger-Dengler-Harles ◽  
◽  
Tamara Heck ◽  
Marc Rittberger ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Seeking ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Specific Question ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Relevance Assessment ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Introduction. Systematic reviews are a method to synthesise research results for evidence-based decision-making on a specific question. Processes of information seeking and behaviour play a crucial role and might intensively influence the outcomes of a review. This paper proposes an approach to understand the relevance assessment and decision-making of researchers that conduct systematic reviews. Method. A systematic review was conducted to build up a database for text-based qualitative analyses of researchers’ decision-making in review processes. Analysis. The analysis focuses on the selection process of retrieved articles and introduces the method to investigate relevance assessment processes of researchers. Results. There are different methods to conduct reviews in research, and relevance assessment of documents within those processes is neither one-directional nor standardised. Research on information behaviour of researchers involved in those reviews has not looked at relevance assessment steps and their influence in a review’s outcomes. Conclusions. A reason for the varieties and inconsistencies of review types might be that information seeking and relevance assessment are much more complex and researchers might not be able to draw upon their concrete decisions. This paper proposes a research study to investigate researcher behaviour while synthesising research results for evidence-based decision-making.

scholarly journals How Objective are Systematic Reviews? Differences between Reviews on Complementary Medicine

2003 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Linde ◽  
Stefan N Willich
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Herbal Medicines ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Literature Searching ◽  
Assessment Data ◽  
Methodological Aspects

Systematic reviews are considered the most reliable tool to summarize existing evidence. To determine whether reviews that address the same questions can produce different answers we examined systematic reviews of herbal medicine, homeopathy, and acupuncture taken from a previously established database. Information on literature searching, inclusion criteria, selection process, quality assessment, data extraction, methods to summarize primary studies, number of included studies, results and conclusions was compared qualitatively. Seventeen topics (eight on acupuncture, six on herbal medicines, three on homeopathy) had been addressed by 2–5 systematic reviews each. The number of primary studies in the reviews varied greatly within most topics. The most obvious reason for discrepancies between the samples was different inclusion criteria (in thirteen topics). Methods of literature searching may have contributed with some topics but the equivalence of the searches was difficult to assess. Differences were frequently observed in other methodological aspects, in results and in conclusions. This analysis shows that, at least in the three areas examined, systematic reviews often differ considerably. Readers should be aware that apparently minor decisions in the review process can have major impact.

scholarly journals Does Platelet-Rich Fibrin Decrease Dimensional Changes and Improve Postoperative Comfort in Post-Extraction Sockets? An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (17) ◽  
pp. 5750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vittorio Moraschini ◽  
Carlos Fernando de Almeida Barros Mourão ◽  
Rafael Coutinho de Mello Machado ◽  
Jhonathan Raphaell Barros Nascimento ◽  
Kayvon Javid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Soft Tissue Healing ◽  
Socket Preservation ◽  
Platelet Rich Fibrin ◽  
Dimensional Changes ◽  
Tissue Healing ◽  
The Impact

This overview aimed to evaluate the methods, quality, and outcomes of systematic reviews (SRs) conducted to investigate the effects of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in dental sockets on promoting bone regeneration and soft tissue healing and diminishing the incidence of pain, swelling, trismus, and alveolar osteitis after tooth extraction. An electronic search without date or language restriction was done in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Web of Science until March 2020. Eligibility criteria included SRs that assessed the effect of PRF for human alveolar socket preservation. The quality assessment of the included studies was performed using AMSTAR 2 guidelines. The protocol of this overview was recorded in PROSPERO under the number CRD42018089617. The search and selection process yielded 13 studies published between 2011 and 2018. The analysis of the studies showed inconclusive data for the effect of the PRF and the dimensional changes. There is no definitive evidence for the impact of using PRF alone on bone regeneration in post-extraction sockets. The use of PRF improves soft tissue healing and reduces pain, bleeding, and osteitis in post-extraction sockets.

scholarly journals Sample Selection in Systematic Literature Reviews of Management Research

2021 ◽  
pp. 109442812098685
Author(s):  
Martin R. W. Hiebl
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Sample Selection ◽  
Management Research ◽  
Vital Part ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
The Mean

Systematic review techniques are about to become the “new normal” in reviews of management research. However, there is not yet much advice on how to organize the sample selection process as part of such reviews. This article addresses this void and analyzes this vital part of systematic reviews in more detail. In particular, it offers a critical review of systematic literature reviews published in the Academy of Management Annals and the International Journal of Management Reviews between 2004 and 2018. Based on this methodological literature review, the article presents issues to consider in the most critical choices during the sample selection process. Furthermore, this review identifies several descriptive features such as the mean number of research items included in systematic reviews, the mean number of databases used, and the mean coverage period of such reviews. These numbers may be used as benchmark figures in future reviews.

scholarly journals Characteristics and Impact of Librarian Co-authored Systematic Reviews: A Bibliometric Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahlam A. Saleh ◽  
Frank Huebner
Keyword(s):  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Core Collection ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Clinical Implementation ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Randomized Controlled

ABSTRACTBackgroundHealth sciences libraries have been providing services that support systematic reviews (SRs) for many years. In recent times the problem facing health sciences libraries is the management of the demand versus resources availability. There have been questions posed as to the value of this type of service in health sciences libraries. A valuable outcome of librarian collaboration on SR teams is co-authorship of the reported SRs. This study aimed to examine the characteristics and impact of librarian co-authored SRs.MethodsA bibliometric analysis was conducted. Librarian co-authored SRs were identified in the Web of Science (WOS) Core Collection limited up to the year 2017. Librarian co-authored SRs with the librarian as first author were excluded from this analysis. Additional inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied in the selection process. The included records were analyzed using Perl programs and VOSviewer. To examine the dissemination of librarian co-authored SRs, citing articles to the included SR records were retrieved from the WOS Core Collection and then identified in MEDLINE for an analysis of the indexed publication types.ResultsThe included results yielded 1,711 librarian co-authored SRs published between 1996 and 2017. The top three countries of the first author affiliation were USA, Canada, and Netherlands. Sources of publication were distributed among 730 journal titles. The number of MEDLINE citing articles to the included SRs was 28,868. The mean number of citations to a SR was 26.4. The top publication type descriptor of the citing articles representing the MEDLINE “Study Characteristic” category was “Randomized Controlled Trial”.ConclusionOutcomes of librarian contributions to supporting SRs include increasing scholarship opportunities that highlight librarian contributions to other disciplines. SRs are bodies of evidence, which can influence policy, patient care, and future research. In this study, we demonstrate that librarian co-authored SRs are disseminated into randomized controlled trials and other study types, meta-analyses, as well as guidelines, thus providing insight into knowledge transfer and the potential for clinical implementation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document