Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Genome Copying Errors02:46

Genome Copying Errors

4.3K
DNA replication is a well-evolved process that copies millions of base pairs with high fidelity during each cell division. Occasionally a wrong base or a long stretch of wrong bases may get added to the daughter strands. If the errors are left unchecked, cells might accumulate several mutations that might endanger their  survival. Therefore, the copying errors are checked and repaired at three levels.
4.3K
Gene Duplication and Divergence02:37

Gene Duplication and Divergence

6.8K
The seminal work of Ohno in 1970 popularized the idea of gene duplication and divergence. DNA sequence comparison studies reveal that a large portion of the genes in bacteria, archaebacteria, and eukaryotes was  generated by gene duplication and divergence, indicating its critical role in evolution.
The duplicated copies of the gene are called Paralogs. Paralogs with similar sequences and functions form a gene family. Across several species, a large number of gene families are...
6.8K
Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs02:26

Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs

11.6K
Sequencing of the human genome has opened up several best-kept secrets of the genome. Scientists have identified thousands of genome variations that exist within a population. These variations can be a single nucleotide or a larger chromosomal variation.
Copy number variations or CNVs are the structural variations that cover more than 1kb of DNA sequence. The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), on the other hand, is a single nucleotide change or a point mutation that is found in more than 1%...
11.6K
Duplication of Chromatin Structure02:05

Duplication of Chromatin Structure

6.1K
The process of chromosome duplication during cell division requires genome-wide disruption and re-assembly of chromatin. The chromatin structure must be accurately inherited, reassembled, and maintained in the daughter cells to ensure lineage propagation.
The basic unit of the chromatin is the nucleosome, consisting of DNA wrapped around octameric histone proteins and short stretches of linker DNA separating individual nucleosomes. The histone proteins within the nucleosome have their...
6.1K
Systematic Sampling Method01:17

Systematic Sampling Method

10.3K
Sampling is a technique to select a portion (or subset) of the larger population and study that portion (the sample) to gain information about the population. Data are the result of sampling from a population. The sampling method ensures that samples are drawn without bias and accurately represent the population. Because measuring the entire population in a study is not practical, researchers use samples to represent the population of interest.
Systematic sampling is one of the simplest methods...
10.3K
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

8.7K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
8.7K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The effects of cold temperature on the development, microbiome, and transcriptome of the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis.

Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part D, Genomics & proteomics·2026
Same author

Evaluating the accuracy and speed of eight deduplication tools: A comparative study.

Research synthesis methods·2026
Same author

Investigating the impact of problematic evidence on clinical practice guidelines and associated patient outcomes (VITALITY Study II): protocol.

BMJ open·2026
Same author

Evidence contamination: what it is and why it matters.

BMJ evidence-based medicine·2026
Same author

Intraductal digestive enzyme accumulation drives lethal hemorrhagic necrotizing pancreatitis and enables therapeutic intervention.

Research square·2026
Same author

The Trial Bank initiative to promote trustworthy living evidence for medication safety (PROMISE) of children: design and pilot validation.

BMC medicine·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 5, 2026

Implementation of In Vitro Drug Resistance Assays: Maximizing the Potential for Uncovering Clinically Relevant Resistance Mechanisms
08:46

Implementation of In Vitro Drug Resistance Assays: Maximizing the Potential for Uncovering Clinically Relevant Resistance Mechanisms

Published on: December 9, 2015

10.6K

Automation of duplicate record detection for systematic reviews: Deduplicator.

Connor Forbes1, Hannah Greenwood2, Matt Carter2

  • 1Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia. cforbes@bond.edu.au.

Systematic Reviews
|August 2, 2024
PubMed
Summary

The Deduplicator tool significantly reduces time and improves accuracy for removing duplicate records in systematic reviews compared to manual methods. Further research is recommended to compare its performance against other deduplication tools.

Keywords:
AutomaticDeduplicationDuplicate articleDuplicate recordSearchingSystematic review

More Related Videos

Automated Robotic Liquid Handling Assembly of Modular DNA Devices
11:22

Automated Robotic Liquid Handling Assembly of Modular DNA Devices

Published on: December 1, 2017

12.4K
Capturing Chromosome Conformation Across Length Scales
10:15

Capturing Chromosome Conformation Across Length Scales

Published on: January 20, 2023

3.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 5, 2026

Implementation of In Vitro Drug Resistance Assays: Maximizing the Potential for Uncovering Clinically Relevant Resistance Mechanisms
08:46

Implementation of In Vitro Drug Resistance Assays: Maximizing the Potential for Uncovering Clinically Relevant Resistance Mechanisms

Published on: December 9, 2015

10.6K
Automated Robotic Liquid Handling Assembly of Modular DNA Devices
11:22

Automated Robotic Liquid Handling Assembly of Modular DNA Devices

Published on: December 1, 2017

12.4K
Capturing Chromosome Conformation Across Length Scales
10:15

Capturing Chromosome Conformation Across Length Scales

Published on: January 20, 2023

3.4K

Area of Science:

  • Bibliometrics
  • Information Science
  • Systematic Review Methodology

Background:

  • Duplicate record identification is a critical step in multi-database systematic reviews.
  • Manual deduplication is time-consuming and prone to errors.
  • Novel automation tools are needed to improve efficiency and accuracy.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To introduce and evaluate the efficacy of a new systematic review automation tool, the Deduplicator.
  • To compare the Deduplicator's performance against a semi-manual EndNote method for duplicate record removal.
  • To assess the performance of different algorithms within the Deduplicator tool.

Main Methods:

  • The Deduplicator tool was developed and tested using 10 Cochrane systematic review search results.
  • Researchers compared the Deduplicator's 'balanced' algorithm with a semi-manual EndNote method.
  • Three Deduplicator algorithms ('balanced', 'focused', 'relaxed') were evaluated on previously deduplicated datasets.

Main Results:

  • The Deduplicator reduced deduplication time to 5 min per 1000 records, versus 15 min with EndNote.
  • The Deduplicator exhibited a lower error rate (1.8 per 1000 records) compared to EndNote (3.1 per 1000 records).
  • The 'balanced' algorithm achieved a high F1 score (0.9647), 'focused' had high accuracy (0.9798) and recall (0.9757), and 'relaxed' showed high precision (0.9896).

Conclusions:

  • The Deduplicator tool effectively reduces deduplication time while maintaining or enhancing accuracy in systematic reviews.
  • The study highlights the potential of automated tools for streamlining systematic review processes.
  • Further comparative research is suggested to position the Deduplicator against a wider range of deduplication methods.