[Context] The importance of systematic literature reviews (SLRs) to find and synthesize new evidence for Software Engineering (SE) is well known, yet performing and keeping SLRs up-to-date is still a big challenge. One of the most exhaustive activities during an SLR is the study selection because of the large number of studies to be analyzed. Furthermore, to avoid bias, study selection should be conducted by more than one reviewer. [Objective] This dissertation aims to evaluate the use of machine learning (ML) text classification models to support the study selection in SLR updates and verify if such models can replace an additional reviewer. [Method] We reproduce the study selection of an SLR update performed by three experienced researchers, applying the ML models to the same dataset they used. We used two supervised ML algorithms with different configurations (Random Forest and Support Vector Machines) to train the models based on the original SLR. We calculated the study selection effectiveness of the ML models in terms of precision, recall, and f-measure. We also compared the level of similarity and agreement between the studies selected by the ML models and the original reviewers by performing a Kappa Analysis and Euclidean Distance Analysis. [Results] In our investigation, the ML models achieved an f-score of 0.33 for study selection, which is insufficient for conducting the task in an automated way. However, we found that such models could reduce the study selection effort by 33.9 percent without loss of evidence (keeping a 100 percent recall), discarding studies with a low probability of being included. In addition, the ML models achieved a moderate average kappa level of agreement of 0.42 with the reviewers. [Conclusion] The results indicate that ML is not ready to replace study selection by human reviewers and may also not be used to replace the need for an additional reviewer. However, there is potential for reducing the study selection effort of SLR updates.