Cited by 3Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningMachine Learning in HealthcarePrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

How Robust is Your Automatic Diagnosis Model?

Wang, Ke, Wang, Guangyu, Chen, Ning, Chen, Ting·2019·2019 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM)

Abstract

Automatic diagnosis based on clinical notes has become a popular research field recently, and many proposed deep learning models have achieved competitive performance in diseases inference. However, previous research reveals that deep learning models are susceptible to negligibly perturbed inputs named adversarial examples, which contradicts with the safety and reliability requirements of the medical domain. To analyze the vulnerability and robustness of current automatic diagnosis models, we investigate in the generation of adversarial text examples. The main challenges for generating adversarial text examples are divided into three parts. First, the word embedding space is discrete, which makes it hard to perturb as small as adversarial image examples generation. Second, previous adversarial example generation methods focus mainly on multi-class classification models, while automatic diagnosis is a multi-label classification task. Third, the semantic and medical meaning of clinical notes are vital in disease inference, and even small perturbations can change them to a large extent. In this paper, we address the three main challenges and propose Clinical-Attacker, a general framework for both white-box and black-box adversarial text examples generation against automatic diagnosis models. Experimental results on MIMIC-III dataset demonstrate that our framework can easily alter the predictions of automatic diagnosis models with the semantic and medical meaning preserved.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/bibm47256.2019.8983217

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Only one study addressed adversarial attacks for clinical notes by applying transformations such as medical concept substitution, word replacement, or adverb removal.

    “Only one study addressed adversarial attacks for clinical notes by applying transformations such as medical concept substitution, word replacement, or adverb removal30.”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. 10.14722/ndss.2019.23138 · DOI
  2. gong, 2018, Adversarial texts with gradient methods, CoRR, abs 1801 7175
  3. cheng, 2018, Seq2sick: Evaluating the robustness of sequence-to-sequence models with adversarial examples, CoRR, abs 1803 1128
  4. samanta, 2017, Towards crafting text adversarial samples, CoRR, abs 1707 2812
  5. aronson, 2006, Metamap Mapping Text to the UMLS Metathesaurus, 1
  6. 10.1093/nar/gkh061 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.3115/v1/D14-1162 · DOI · Paper page
  8. bahdanau, 0, Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate, Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations
  9. kurakin, 2017, Adversarial machine learning at scale, 5th International Conference on Learning Representations - ICLR 2017
  10. 10.1109/EuroSP.2016.36 · DOI · Paper page
  11. shi, 2017, Towards automated ICD coding using deep learning, CoRR, abs 1711 4075
  12. lipton, 0, Learning to diagnose with LSTM recurrent neural networks, International Conference on Learning Representations
  13. goodfellow, 2015, Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples, International Conference on Learning Representations ICLR 2015
  14. szegedy, 2014, Intriguing properties of neural networks, Proc 2nd Int Conf on Learning Representations ICLR 2014
  15. ebrahimi, 2018, On adversarial examples for character-level neural machine translation, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics COLING 2018, 653
  16. 10.24963/ijcai.2018/585 · DOI
  17. 10.18653/v1/N18-1100 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.18653/v1/P18-2006 · DOI
  19. li, 2018, Automated icd-9 coding via a deep learning approach, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
  20. 10.1109/SP.2017.49 · DOI · Paper page
  21. papernot, 2016, Transferability in machine learning from phenomena to black-box attacks using adversarial samples
  22. 10.1109/CVPR.2016.282 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1109/CVPR.2018.00957 · DOI
  24. sarkar, 2017, UPSET and ANGRI: Breaking high performance image classifiers, CoRR, abs 1707 1159
  25. 10.1038/sdata.2016.35 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wang, K., Wang, G., Chen, N., & Chen, T.
Affiliations
Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology (CN)
Venue
2019 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2019-11
Pages
877-884
OpenAlex
W3004458411
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.10
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
adversarial examples, adversarial text generation, automated diagnosis, clinical notes, model robustness, multi-label classification, word embeddings, white-box and black-box attacks, MIMIC-III

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