Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026

Implementation of In Vitro Drug Resistance Assays: Maximizing the Potential for Uncovering Clinically Relevant Resistance Mechanisms
Published on: December 9, 2015
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.
Background:
To describe the algorithm and investigate the efficacy of a novel systematic review automation tool "the Deduplicator" to remove duplicate records from a multi-database systematic review search.
Methods:
We constructed and tested the efficacy of the Deduplicator tool by using 10 previous Cochrane systematic review search results to compare the Deduplicator's 'balanced' algorithm to a semi-manual EndNote method. Two researchers each performed deduplication on the 10 libraries of search results. For five of those libraries, one researcher used the Deduplicator, while the other performed semi-manual deduplication with EndNote. They then switched methods for the remaining five libraries. In addition to this analysis, comparison between the three different Deduplicator algorithms ('balanced', 'focused' and 'relaxed') was performed on two datasets of previously deduplicated search results.
Results:
Before deduplication, the mean library size for the 10 systematic reviews was 1962 records. When using the Deduplicator, the mean time to deduplicate was 5 min per 1000 records compared to 15 min with EndNote. The mean error rate with Deduplicator was 1.8 errors per 1000 records in comparison to 3.1 with EndNote. Evaluation of the different Deduplicator algorithms found that the 'balanced' algorithm had the highest mean F1 score of 0.9647. The 'focused' algorithm had the highest mean accuracy of 0.9798 and the highest recall of 0.9757. The 'relaxed' algorithm had the highest mean precision of 0.9896.
Conclusions:
This demonstrates that using the Deduplicator for duplicate record detection reduces the time taken to deduplicate, while maintaining or improving accuracy compared to using a semi-manual EndNote method. However, further research should be performed comparing more deduplication methods to establish relative performance of the Deduplicator against other deduplication methods.
Related Concept Videos
Genome Copying Errors
Gene Duplication and Divergence
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...
Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs
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%...
Duplication of Chromatin Structure
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...
Systematic Sampling Method
Systematic sampling is one of the simplest methods...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling 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...

