Cited by 57Machine Learning and AlgorithmsBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesMachine Learning in Healthcare

Applying active learning to assertion classification of concepts in clinical text

Open access
Chen, Yukun, Mani, Subramani, Xu, Hua·2012·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Supervised machine learning methods for clinical natural language processing (NLP) research require a large number of annotated samples, which are very expensive to build because of the involvement of physicians. Active learning, an approach that actively samples from a large pool, provides an alternative solution. Its major goal in classification is to reduce the annotation effort while maintaining the quality of the predictive model. However, few studies have investigated its uses in clinical NLP. This paper reports an application of active learning to a clinical text classification task: to determine the assertion status of clinical concepts. The annotated corpus for the assertion classification task in the 2010 i2b2/VA Clinical NLP Challenge was used in this study. We implemented several existing and newly developed active learning algorithms and assessed their uses. The outcome is reported in the global ALC score, based on the Area under the average Learning Curve of the AUC (Area Under the Curve) score. Results showed that when the same number of annotated samples was used, active learning strategies could generate better classification models (best ALC-0.7715) than the passive learning method (random sampling) (ALC-0.7411). Moreover, to achieve the same classification performance, active learning strategies required fewer samples than the random sampling method. For example, to achieve an AUC of 0.79, the random sampling method used 32 samples, while our best active learning algorithm required only 12 samples, a reduction of 62.5% in manual annotation effort.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2011.11.003

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some relevant records may not be presented to the reviewer because the text used in the abstract is not seen as potentially relevant because of concept ambiguity.

    “It might be that some relevant records are not presented to the reviewer because the text used in the abstract is not seen as potentially relevant because of concept ambiguity [11, 17], which can make finding relevant records challenging.”

    From The SAFE procedure: a practical stopping heuristic for active learning-based screening in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Methods (§3.1; page unavailable) describe classifying assertions about medical concepts in clinical notes, and the Discussion (§5; page unavailable) concerns which samples active-learning algorithms select for annotation. Neither addresses relevant records being withheld from a reviewer because ambiguous abstract text appears irrelevant. Searches for reviewer screening, missed records, and concept ambiguity found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Records can be hard to find due to concept ambiguity, different angles from which a subject can be studied, and changes in the meaning of a concept over time (concept drift).

    “Records can be hard to find due to concept ambiguity, the different angles from which a subject can be studied, and changes in the meaning of a concept over time, known as concept drift (Chen et al., 2012; Gama et al., 2014).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 30 · Cited by 57

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]Tong S Koller D Support Vector Machine Active Learning with Applications to Text Classification Journal of Machine Learning Research 999 1006 2001

Authors
Chen, Y., Mani, S., & Xu, H.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Xu, Hua
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
265-272
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2132910334
Cited by
57
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA141307)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM010681)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
active learning (machine learning), clinical text classification, clinical concepts, annotation cost reduction, random sampling comparison, learning curve
MeSH terms
Humans, Natural Language Processing, Semantics, Problem-Based Learning, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Data Mining

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review