Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Not available on lingo.lol.
lingo.lol is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A place for linguists, philologists, and other lovers of languages.

Administered by:

Server stats:

55
active users

lingo.lol: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.4.3

#SystematicReview

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
*
Jennifer Hamilton, MD PhD

I don't trust large language model (#LLM) AIs: They're trained to sound plausible without regard for accuracy, ie, generate bullshit.

If you can handle that "spicy" description, please read this essay by @researchfairy, describing how LLMs can be used to deliberately weaponize #SystematicReview articles. Want a topic review that will completely plausibly support your controversial viewpoint? Say, you want to support raw milk or decry #vaccination ?

blog.bgcarlisle.com/2025/05/16

#AntiVax#AI
MottG

Clustering Workbench of the Carrot2 search engine is working now. It can
cluster search results by 3 algorithms:
Lingo, STC, or k=means. STC is Suffix Tree Clustering method, a fast, phrase-based clustering method that groups documents based on common, frequent phrases. The screenshot shows search results using Lingo clustering for query:
"survey of AI tools for systematic reviews."

search.carrot2.org/#/workbench

#research #academia #Carrot2
#systematicReview
#clustering #Lingo #STC #k-means

Wolfgang Viechtbauer

I am on a roll today. Don't write: "We searched in two databases: PubMed and Web of Science." WoS is not a database but a platform for accessing multiple databases. The one typically used is the Core Collection. But one can also search MEDLINE via WoS, which is (almost) the same as PubMed. So specify which database(s) you searched via WoS (e.g., "We searched PubMed and the Web of Science Core Collection").

#MetaAnalysis#SystematicReview
Wolfgang Viechtbauer

Don't write: "We conducted our meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines". PRISMA is a *reporting* guideline, not a guideline for *conducting* a MA. Yes, these two things are interlinked (if one reports certain things, then one has to do these things), but it is more accurate to write: "We report the results of our meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines".

#MetaAnalysis#SystematicReview
*
UniversityofGroningenLibrary

How do you conduct a #SystematicReview? What are the requirements, and what types of reviews exist? What is the best search strategy for you?

Our information specialist Ina Vrolijk helps researchers find their way through the jungle of databases and search strings.

🔗 rug.nl/library/news/240621-mee

Our online guide provides hands-on tips:
🔗 libguides.rug.nl/systematic-re

#ResearchMethods#research#methodology
Dorothy Bishop

shocking evidence of epidemic of #fraud in #biomedical science
biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/20
#researchintegrity #systematicReview

bioRxiv · Fraudulent studies are undermining the reliability of systematic reviews – a study of the prevalence of problematic images in preclinical studies of depressionSystematic reviews are considered by many to constitute the highest level of scientific evidence. A caveat is that the methods used in a systematic review – combining information from multiple studies – are predicated on all of the reports being truthful. Currently, we do not know how frequent fraudulent studies are in systematic reviews, or how they affect the resulting evidence base. For a systematic review of preclinical studies of depression, we found that potentially fraudulent studies were not only common but also that they biased the findings of the review. In a sample of 1,035 studies, we found that 19 % of peer-reviewed reports displayed data in the form of problematic images. In a majority of the cases, images had been altered or recycled in a way that makes us suspect foul play. Making things worse, these studies reported larger effect sizes, on average, than did studies where we did not identify problems. Counter to commonly held beliefs, reports with problematic images were not cited less or published in lower-impact journals, nor were their authors isolated to any specific geographic area. The sheer prevalence of problematic studies, and the fact that we could not find a simple pattern for identifying them, undermines the validity of systematic reviews within our research field. We suspect that this is symptomatic of a broader problem that needs immediate addressing. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.
PaquitoBernard

Our last #preprint

"Climate Change and #MentalHeath in the #philippines - a #SystematicReview "

A very important collaboration with my colleague from Cebu

Definitively, the Philippines are the canary in a coal mine

- Risks to mental health following a natural disaster
- Determinants of post-traumatic #stress disorder risks
- #Resilience & post-traumatic growth following #naturalDisaster
- Personal experiences & other mental health outcomes

osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/k74b

osf.ioOSF
#research#psychology
Vegan Australia

"Plant-based foods should replace animal-based foods for better health."

That is the conclusion from a new systematic review, published by a German team in the BMC Medicine journal. 37 prospective studies were analysed, and it was found that substituting red and processed animal derived meat, dairy, eggs, and chickens with nuts, legumes, and whole grains improve heart health and reduce the risk of #Type2Diabetes and death.

The risk of cardiovascular disease was about 25% lower when 50g of processed meat (such as ham, bacon, sausages, hot dogs) a day was replaced with nuts or legumes (such as lentils, beans, peas). Meanwhile, replacing one egg a day with 25g of nuts was linked to a 17% lower risk.

Similar benefits were seen for type 2 diabetes and all causes of death recorded by the 37 studies analysed. The authors calculated a reduction in type 2 diabetes of about 20% when 50g of processed meat daily was swapped for up to 28g of nuts, or when a daily egg was replaced with 30g of whole grains or 10g of nuts.

This #SystematicReview builds on the accumulating research indicating the benefits of switching to a #PlantBased, or #vegan diet, in order to improve an individual's health.

pcrm.org/news/health-nutrition

The full study is published in BMC Medicine and can be found here:
bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/

With thanks to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine for providing the story.

Physicians Committee for Responsible MedicinePlant-Based Foods Should Replace Animal-Based Foods for Better HealthSubstituting red and processed meat, dairy, eggs, and poultry with nuts, legumes, and whole grains improve heart health and reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes and death, according to a new systematic review.
#vegans#veganism#AnimalRights
Dr Emma Kate Ward

A systematic review I helped with is out today! We summarise the existing research using flickering stimuli* to understand visual cognition in the first 6 years of life, with explanations of the different methodological approaches and some of the insights these approaches have yielded

*also known as frequency-tagging, fast periodic visual stimulation, rhythmic visual stimulation, and many other names

doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2023.101

#cogNeuro#cogSci#systematicReview
Gjalt-Jorn Peters

Dear fellow #SystematicReview enthusiasts, #Bibliometrics experts, #librarians, and other people who work regularly with bibliographic databases (e.g. PsycINFO, EmBase, PubMed, etc) and interfaces (e.g. by Ovid, Ebsco, etc) 👋

Our library recently decided to discontinue licenses for EmBase, Cinahl, and Cochrane.

What I missed when deciding is an overview of overlap between these databases and others (e.g. PubMed).

Does this exist?

I can't imagine nobody has built this yet? 🤔

[please boost!🙏]

TrendingLive feeds
About