Objective: To explore the influence of modified literature classification strategies of Chinese biomedical literature on an automated screener based on conventional algorithm.Methods: Citations of studies indexed as 'Oral Science' published in Chinese between 2014 and 2018 were retrieved from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Apart from dividing the studies into 2 categories (RCTs and non-RCTs), 3-category (RCTs, may-be-RCTs, and non-RCTs) and 5-category (RCTs, randomization-unclear

more »

... ontrolled trials, non-randomized clinical trials/studies, non-clinical literature, and unclear) classification were also employed. The multi-category strategies took into consideration the diversity of study types and the presence of expression vagueness. Similar to real-world practice, full-text-needed studies included those that certainly concerned RCTs and those that might be RCTs but lacked information in their abstracts. Screening and classification were performed independently by 2 experienced researchers. The classification results after peer discussion and/or senior decision were used for the training of the CNN model. The probability thresholds for the classification of each category were set at a high sensitivity level.The area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) was calculated when applicable. An isolated sample of citations was used in a prospective comparative trial that compared the sensitivity (SEN) and specificity (SPE) of screening RCTs, may-be-RCTs, and full-text-needed studies by using algorithms with different strategies and manual screening.Results:In total, 12,166 citations were used for CNN model training. All 3 training strategies performed well in RCTs-screening with AUCs being higher than 0.99. The training exhibited that, when screening for RCTs, the 5- and 3-category strategies can yield better performance than the 2-category strategy. When screening for may-be-RCTs and full text-needed studies, the 5-category model achieved better SENs while the 3-category model achieved higher SPEs. The comparative trial with 1,422 samples presented similar results.Conclusion: The CNN algorithm has promising results in the automatic screening of Chinese literature. The multi-category training strategies considering different study types and expression vagueness are more suitable for CNN training and can help achieve better screening sensitivity and specificity.