- Who runs it
- NICE
- Can it affect people?
- Mostly indirectly. It is described as a tool for staff and internal work.
- Possible rights impact: Internal operations
How much do we know?
A source is a published page or document behind a claim. The label measures what is documented, not whether a system is good or safe. Missing information does not prove that a safeguard is missing.
Sources and further reading
- NICE: Priority Screening Algorithm / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records / 2025-02-27
- GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records - official inventory / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records
optional detailFull record and details
The interface and explanatory guides are translated. Record names, record descriptions, quotations, detailed editorial notes, and linked public documents stay in their published language so evidence is not silently changed.
If this affects someone
This tool's purpose is to prioritise the scientific papers that could possibley include the content that users are looking for during the screening phase of systematic review. The model is actively trained based on the manual screening decisions of the systematic reviewer. It 'learns' to apply a label and then labels 'unseen' records. With this information it then ranks (and re-ranks) records that are being screened in systematic reviews. Applying this model on the 'unseen'/unreviewed scientific papers, has the...
The decision made by the tool does not directly affect the public. It's used to improve the efficiency of our processes. All approaches to screening are accompanied by a 10% Quality Assurance check which involves another reviewer blind screening 10% of the studies and then a comparison is made of the screening decisions. Any discrepancies are disucssed to agree whether the study should be included or excluded with...
Title and Abstract of scientific publications are the 'predictors', and the screening decisions made by the reviewer is the 'target' variables for logistic regression algorithm.
Sources and further reading
First indexed from GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records on 2026-09-01. Only usable fields from the public record are shown; missing answers remain blank.
Fields were mapped from the linked public record by deterministic code. No generative model wrote this text.
Facts to check
- Who runs it
- NICE
- Life area
- Public sector
- Proof level
- Source-backed
- Footnotes
- 2
- updated
- 20 months ago
The score orders work, not people.
Review priority rises for rights-sensitive uses, missing sources, unanswered accountability fields, and old evidence. Strong official documentation lowers it. The score is not a verdict on safety, fairness, or legality.
A missing field means the attached public sources did not answer it. Coverage is uneven, publication does not prove performance, and a certificate has a defined boundary.
Previous versions
- Imported2 months agoSubstantialImported from GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records.
Help check this record.
Add a public source, challenge a claim, or point out a missing way to reach a person.
A submitted name, email, description, source, or correction is used only to verify the record and prevent abuse. It is not published automatically.