AI · Systematic/literature review

Using Machine Intelligence to Prioritise Code Review Requests

2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP) · 2021

Nishrith Saini, Ricardo Britto

Original paper ↗

Summary

Study evaluates machine-intelligence approaches for prioritizing code-review requests.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Use risk- and urgency-aware review queues, with human override and calibration.

Reported result

What the study found

Study evaluates machine-intelligence approaches for prioritizing code-review requests.

Research question

What the authors investigated

How does the study’s stated design explain its reported outcome in this setting?

Design

Systematic/literature review

Sample and setting

Abstract-only; sample/context details not available in the fetched metadata.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Only the DOI metadata/abstract was fetched; detailed methods, sample size, effect sizes, and external-validity constraints require full text.

Research sources

abstract_only

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.

Read the paper