Abstract. -In this paper we introduce modified version of one-dimensional outflow dynamics (known as a Sznajd model) which simplifies the analytical treatment. We show that simulations results of the original and modified rules are exactly the same for various initial conditions. We obtain the analytical formula for exit probability using Kirkwood approximation and we show that it agrees perfectly with computer simulations in case of random initial conditions. Moreover, we compare our results with earlier analytical calculations obtained from renormalization group and from general sequential probabilistic frame introduced by Galam. Using computer simulations we investigate the time evolution of several correlation functions to show if Kirkwood approximation can be justified. Surprisingly, it occurs that Kirkwood approximation gives correct results even for these initial conditions for which it cannot be easily justified.

Screening references is a time‐consuming step necessary for systematic reviews and guideline development. Previous studies have shown that human effort can be reduced by using machine learning software to prioritise large reference collections such that most of the relevant references are identified before screening is completed. We describe and evaluate RobotAnalyst, a Web‐based software system that combines text‐mining and machine learning algorithms for organising references by their content and actively prioritising them based on a relevancy classification model trained and updated throughout the process. We report an evaluation over 22 reference collections (most are related to public health topics) screened using RobotAnalyst with a total of 43 610 abstract‐level decisions. The number of references that needed to be screened to identify 95% of the abstract‐level inclusions for the evidence review was reduced on 19 of the 22 collections. Significant gains over random sampling were achieved for all reviews conducted with active prioritisation, as compared with only two of five when prioritisation was not used. RobotAnalyst's descriptive clustering and topic modelling functionalities were also evaluated by public health analysts. Descriptive clustering provided more coherent organisation than topic modelling, and the content of the clusters was apparent to the users across a varying number of clusters. This is the first large‐scale study using technology‐assisted screening to perform new reviews, and the positive results provide empirical evidence that RobotAnalyst can accelerate the identification of relevant studies. The results also highlight the issue of user complacency and the need for a stopping criterion to realise the work savings.

We formulate and investigate the nonlinear q-voter model (which as special cases includes the linear voter and the Sznajd model) on a one dimensional lattice. We derive analytical formula for the exit probability and show that it agrees perfectly with Monte Carlo simulations. The puzzle, that we deal with here, may be contained in a simple question: "Why the mean field approach gives the exact formula for the exit probability in the one-dimensional nonlinear q-voter model?". To answer this question we test several hypothesis proposed recently for the Sznajd model, including the finite size effects, the influence of the range of interactions and the importance of the initial step of the evolution. On the one hand, our work is part of a trend of the current debate on the form of the exit probability in the one-dimensional Sznajd model but on the other hand, it concerns the much broader problem of nonlinear q-voter model.

BackgroundHere, we outline a method of applying existing machine learning (ML) approaches to aid citation screening in an on-going broad and shallow systematic review of preclinical animal studies. The aim is to achieve a high-performing algorithm comparable to human screening that can reduce human resources required for carrying out this step of a systematic review.MethodsWe applied ML approaches to a broad systematic review of animal models of depression at the citation screening stage. We tested two independently developed ML approaches which used different classification models and feature sets. We recorded the performance of the ML approaches on an unseen validation set of papers using sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. We aimed to achieve 95% sensitivity and to maximise specificity. The classification model providing the most accurate predictions was applied to the remaining unseen records in the dataset and will be used in the next stage of the preclinical biomedical sciences systematic review. We used a cross-validation technique to assign ML inclusion likelihood scores to the human screened records, to identify potential errors made during the human screening process (error analysis).ResultsML approaches reached 98.7% sensitivity based on learning from a training set of 5749 records, with an inclusion prevalence of 13.2%. The highest level of specificity reached was 86%. Performance was assessed on an independent validation dataset. Human errors in the training and validation sets were successfully identified using the assigned inclusion likelihood from the ML model to highlight discrepancies. Training the ML algorithm on the corrected dataset improved the specificity of the algorithm without compromising sensitivity. Error analysis correction leads to a 3% improvement in sensitivity and specificity, which increases precision and accuracy of the ML algorithm.ConclusionsThis work has confirmed the performance and application of ML algorithms for screening in systematic reviews of preclinical animal studies. It has highlighted the novel use of ML algorithms to identify human error. This needs to be confirmed in other reviews with different inclusion prevalence levels, but represents a promising approach to integrating human decisions and automation in systematic review methodology.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-0942-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In this study we aim to explore automatic methods that can detect online documents of low credibility, especially fake news, based on the style they are written in. We show that general-purpose text classifiers, despite seemingly good performance when evaluated simplistically, in fact overfit to sources of documents in training data. In order to achieve a truly style-based prediction, we gather a corpus of 103,219 documents from 223 online sources labelled by media experts, devise realistic evaluation scenarios and design two new classifiers: a neural network and a model based on stylometric features. The evaluation shows that the proposed classifiers maintain high accuracy in case of documents on previously unseen topics (e.g. new events) and from previously unseen sources (e.g. emerging news websites). An analysis of the stylometric model indicates it indeed focuses on sensational and affective vocabulary, known to be typical for fake news.

Graphical abstract

Summary Although the publication rate of the biomedical literature has been growing steadily during the last decades, the accessibility of pertinent research publications for biologist and medical practitioners remains a challenge. This article describes Thalia, which is a semantic search engine that can recognize eight different types of concepts occurring in biomedical abstracts. Thalia is available via a web-based interface or a RESTful API. A key aspect of our search engine is that it is updated from PubMed on a daily basis. We describe here the main building blocks of our tool as well as an evaluation of the retrieval capabilities of Thalia in the context of a precision medicine dataset. Availability and implementation Thalia is available at http://nactem.ac.uk/Thalia_BI/ . Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

BackgroundHere we outline a method of applying existing machine learning (ML) approaches to aid citation screening in an on-going broad and shallow systematic review of preclinical animal studies, with the aim of achieving a high performing algorithm comparable to human screening.MethodsWe applied ML approaches to a broad systematic review of animal models of depression at the citation screening stage. We tested two independently developed ML approaches which used different classification models and feature sets. We recorded the performance of the ML approaches on an unseen validation set of papers using sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. We aimed to achieve 95% sensitivity and to maximise specificity. The classification model providing the most accurate predictions was applied to the remaining unseen records in the dataset and will be used in the next stage of the preclinical biomedical sciences systematic review. We used a cross validation technique to assign ML inclusion likelihood scores to the human screened records, to identify potential errors made during the human screening process (error analysis).ResultsML approaches reached 98.7% sensitivity based on learning from a training set of 5749 records, with an inclusion prevalence of 13.2%. The highest level of specificity reached was 86%. Performance was assessed on an independent validation dataset. Human errors in the training and validation sets were successfully identified using assigned the inclusion likelihood from the ML model to highlight discrepancies. Training the ML algorithm on the corrected dataset improved the specificity of the algorithm without compromising sensitivity. Error analysis correction leads to a 3% improvement in sensitivity and specificity, which increases precision and accuracy of the ML algorithm.ConclusionsThis work has confirmed the performance and application of ML algorithms for screening in systematic reviews of preclinical animal studies. It has highlighted the novel use of ML algorithms to identify human error. This needs to be confirmed in other reviews, , but represents a promising approach to integrating human decisions and automation in systematic review methodology.