Neural Rankers for Effective Screening Prioritisation in Medical Systematic Review Literature Search
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Medical systematic reviews typically require assessing all the documents retrieved by a search. The reason is two-fold: the task aims for ``total recall''; and documents retrieved using Boolean search are an unordered set, and thus it is unclear how an assessor could examine only a subset. Screening prioritisation is the process of ranking the (unordered) set of retrieved documents, allowing assessors to begin the downstream processes of the systematic review creation earlier, leading to earlier completion of the review, or even avoiding screening documents ranked least relevant. Screening prioritisation requires highly effective ranking methods. Pre-trained language models are state-of-the-art on many IR tasks but have yet to be applied to systematic review screening prioritisation. In this paper, we apply several pre-trained language models to the systematic review document ranking task, both directly and fine-tuned. An empirical analysis compares how effective neural methods compare to traditional methods for this task. We also investigate different types of document representations for neural methods and their impact on ranking performance. Our results show that BERT-based rankers outperform the current state-of-the-art screening prioritisation methods. However, BERT rankers and existing methods can actually be complementary, and thus, further improvements may be achieved if used in conjunction.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Dec 2022.
Builds on
21 of 58 references.
References · 21
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2019BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text miningcited by 1,935
- 2020Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processingcited by 996
- 2019Transfer Learning in Biomedical Natural Language Processing: An Evaluation of BERT and ELMo on Ten Benchmarking Datasetscited by 298
- 2019Multi-Stage Document Ranking with BERTcited by 200
- 2021Condenser: a Pre-training Architecture for Dense Retrievalcited by 162
- 2019BERT with History Answer Embedding for Conversational Question Answeringcited by 67
- 2021Rethink Training of BERT Rerankers in Multi-Stage Retrieval Pipelinecited by 65
- 2021Improving Query Representations for Dense Retrieval with Pseudo Relevance Feedbackcited by 45
- 2021Pseudo-Relevance Feedback for Multiple Representation Dense Retrievalcited by 31
9 more
- 2021Pseudo Relevance Feedback with Deep Language Models and Dense Retrievers: Successes and Pitfallscited by 26
- 2021Improving Query Representations for Dense Retrieval with Pseudo Relevance Feedback: A Reproducibility Studycited by 13
- 2022To Interpolate or not to Interpolate: PRF, Dense and Sparse Retrieverscited by 12
- 2021Goldilocks: Just-Right Tuning of BERT for Technology-Assisted Reviewcited by 11
- 2022From Little Things Big Things Grow: A Collection with Seed Studies for Medical Systematic Review Literature Searchcited by 10
- 2021Seed-driven Document Ranking for Systematic Reviews: A Reproducibility Studycited by 6
- 2021Search Strategy Formulation for Systematic Reviews: issues, challenges and opportunitiescited by 6
- 2022Automated MeSH Term Suggestion for Effective Query Formulation in Systematic Reviews Literature Searchcited by 6
- 2022How does Feedback Signal Quality Impact Effectiveness of Pseudo Relevance Feedback for Passage Retrieval?cited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 5; 2025: 1.
9 papers.
- 2024The emergence of Large Language Models (LLM) as a tool in literature reviews: an LLM automated systematic reviewcited by 20
- 2024Zero-shot Generative Large Language Models for Systematic Review Screening Automationcited by 14
- 2023Bio-SIEVE: Exploring Instruction Tuning Large Language Models for Systematic Review Automationcited by 6
- 2023Generating Natural Language Queries for More Effective Systematic Review Screening Prioritisationcited by 6
- 20242D Matryoshka Training for Information Retrievalcited by 6
- 2025Pre-training vs. Fine-tuning: A Reproducibility Study on Dense Retrieval Knowledge Acquisitioncited by 2
- 2023Annotating Data for Fine-Tuning a Neural Ranker? Current Active Learning Strategies are not Better than Random Selectioncited by 1
- 2024Document Set Expansion with Positive-Unlabeled Learning: A Density Estimation-based Approachcited by 0
- 2024Harnessing PubMed User Query Logs for Post Hoc Explanations of Recommended Similar Articlescited by 0
- 2025Pre-training vs. Fine-tuning: A Reproducibility Study on Dense Retrieval Knowledge Acquisition12 May 2025
- 20242D Matryoshka Training for Information Retrieval26 Nov 2024
- 2024The emergence of Large Language Models (LLM) as a tool in literature reviews: an LLM automated systematic review6 Sep 2024
- 2024Harnessing PubMed User Query Logs for Post Hoc Explanations of Recommended Similar Articles5 Feb 2024
- 2024Document Set Expansion with Positive-Unlabeled Learning: A Density Estimation-based Approach20 Jan 2024
- 2024Zero-shot Generative Large Language Models for Systematic Review Screening Automation12 Jan 2024
- 2023Annotating Data for Fine-Tuning a Neural Ranker? Current Active Learning Strategies are not Better than Random Selection12 Sep 2023
- 2023Generating Natural Language Queries for More Effective Systematic Review Screening Prioritisation11 Sep 2023
- 2023Bio-SIEVE: Exploring Instruction Tuning Large Language Models for Systematic Review Automation12 Aug 2023