The substantial volume, continued growth, and resulting complexity of the scientific literature not only increases the need for systematic, replicable, and rigorous literature reviews, but also highlights the natural limits of human researchers’ information processing capabilities. In search of a solution to this dilemma, computational techniques are beginning to support human researchers in synthesizing large bodies of literature. However, actionable methodological guidance on how to design, conduct, and document such computationally augmented literature reviews is lacking to date. We respond by introducing and defining computational literature reviews (CLRs) as a new review method and put forward a six-step roadmap, covering the CLR process from identifying the review objectives to selecting algorithms and reporting findings. We make the CLR method accessible to novice and expert users alike by identifying critical design decisions and typical challenges for each step and provide practical guidelines for tailoring the CLR method to four conceptual review goals. As such, we present CLRs as a literature review method where the choice, design, and implementation of a CLR are guided by specific review objectives, methodological capabilities, and resource constraints of the human researcher.

Topic modeling is a popular technique for exploring large document collections. It has proven useful for this task, but its application poses a number of challenges. First, the comparison of available algorithms is anything but simple, as researchers use many different datasets and criteria for their evaluation. A second challenge is the choice of a suitable metric for evaluating the calculated results. The metrics used so far provide a mixed picture, making it difficult to verify the accuracy of topic modeling outputs. Altogether, the choice of an appropriate algorithm and the evaluation of the results remain unresolved issues. Although many studies have reported promising performance by various topic models, prior research has not yet systematically investigated the validity of the outcomes in a comprehensive manner, that is, using more than a small number of the available algorithms and metrics. Consequently, our study has two main objectives. First, we compare all commonly used, non-application-specific topic modeling algorithms and assess their relative performance. The comparison is made against a known clustering and thus enables an unbiased evaluation of results. Our findings show a clear ranking of the algorithms in terms of accuracy. Secondly, we analyze the relationship between existing metrics and the known clustering, and thus objectively determine under what conditions these algorithms may be utilized effectively. This way, we enable readers to gain a deeper understanding of the performance of topic modeling techniques and the interplay of performance and evaluation metrics.

Remote patient monitoring (RPM) enables clinicians to maintain and adjust their patients’ plan of care by using remotely gathered data, such as vital signs, to proactively make medical decisions about a patient’s care. RPM interventions have been touted as a means to improve patient care and well-being while reducing costs and resource needs within the health care ecosystem. However, multiple interworking components must be successfully implemented for an RPM intervention to yield the desired outcomes, and the design and key driver of each component can vary depending on the medical context. This viewpoint and perspective paper presents a 4-component RPM infrastructure framework based on a synthesis of existing literature and practice related to RPM. Specifically, these components are identified and considered: (1) data collection, (2) data transmission and storage, (3) data analysis, and (4) information presentation. Interaction points to consider between components include transmission, interoperability, accessibility, workflow integration, and transparency. Within each of the 4 components, questions affecting research and practice emerge that can affect the outcomes of RPM interventions. This framework provides a holistic perspective of the technologies involved in RPM interventions and how these core elements interact to provide an appropriate infrastructure for deploying RPM in health systems. Further, it provides a common vocabulary to compare and contrast RPM solutions across health contexts and may stimulate new research and intervention opportunities.