Search

The amount of grey literature and 'softer' intelligence from social media or websites is vast. Given the long lead‐times of producing high‐quality peer‐reviewed health information, this is causing a demand for new ways to provide prompt input for secondary research. To our knowledge, this is the first review of automated data extraction methods or tools for health‐related grey literature and soft data, with a focus on (semi)automating horizon scans, health technology assessments (HTA), evidence maps, or other literature reviews. We searched six databases to cover both health‐ and computer‐science literature. After deduplication, 10% of the search results were screened by two reviewers, the remainder was single‐screened up to an estimated 95% sensitivity; screening was stopped early after screening an additional 1000 results with no new includes. All full texts were retrieved, screened, and extracted by a single reviewer and 10% were checked in duplicate. We included 84 papers covering automation for health‐related social media, internet fora, news, patents, government agencies and charities, or trial registers. From each paper, we extracted data about important functionalities for users of the tool or method; information about the level of support and reliability; and about practical challenges and research gaps. Poor availability of code, data, and usable tools leads to low transparency regarding performance and duplication of work. Financial implications, scalability, integration into downstream workflows, and meaningful evaluations should be carefully planned before starting to develop a tool, given the vast amounts of data and opportunities those tools offer to expedite research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Relapse of depression is common and contributes to the overall associated morbidity and burden. We lack evidence-based tools to estimate an individual's risk of relapse after treatment in primary care, which may help us more effectively target relapse prevention., Objective: The objective was to develop and validate a prognostic model to predict risk of relapse of depression in primary care., Methods: Multilevel logistic regression models were developed, using individual participant data from seven primary care-based studies (n=1244), to predict relapse of depression. The model was internally validated using bootstrapping, and generalisability was explored using internal-external cross-validation., Findings: Residual depressive symptoms (OR: 1.13 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.20), p<0.001) and baseline depression severity (OR: 1.07 (1.04 to 1.11), p<0.001) were associated with relapse. The validated model had low discrimination (C-statistic 0.60 (0.55-0.65)) and miscalibration concerns (calibration slope 0.81 (0.31-1.31)). On secondary analysis, being in a relationship was associated with reduced risk of relapse (OR: 0.43 (0.28-0.67), p<0.001); this remained statistically significant after correction for multiple significance testing., Conclusions: We could not predict risk of depression relapse with sufficient accuracy in primary care data, using routinely recorded measures. Relationship status warrants further research to explore its role as a prognostic factor for relapse., Clinical Implications: Until we can accurately stratify patients according to risk of relapse, a universal approach to relapse prevention may be most beneficial, either during acute-phase treatment or post remission. Where possible, this could be guided by the presence or absence of known prognostic factors (eg, residual depressive symptoms) and targeted towards these., Trial Registration Number: NCT04666662., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. Published by BMJ.)