The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A clinical text classification paradigm using weak supervision and deep representation
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Automatic clinical text classification is a natural language processing (NLP) technology that unlocks information embedded in clinical narratives. Machine learning approaches have been shown to be effective for clinical text classification tasks. However, a successful machine learning model usually requires extensive human efforts to create labeled training data and conduct feature engineering. In this study, we propose a clinical text classification paradigm using weak supervision and deep representation to reduce these human efforts. METHODS: We develop a rule-based NLP algorithm to automatically generate labels for the training data, and then use the pre-trained word embeddings as deep representation features for training machine learning models. Since machine learning is trained on labels generated by the automatic NLP algorithm, this training process is called weak supervision. We evaluat the paradigm effectiveness on two institutional case studies at Mayo Clinic: smoking status classification and proximal femur (hip) fracture classification, and one case study using a public dataset: the i2b2 2006 smoking status classification shared task. We test four widely used machine learning models, namely, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Multilayer Perceptron Neural Networks (MLPNN), and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), using this paradigm. Precision, recall, and F1 score are used as metrics to evaluate performance. RESULTS: CNN achieves the best performance in both institutional tasks (F1 score: 0.92 for Mayo Clinic smoking status classification and 0.97 for fracture classification). We show that word embeddings significantly outperform tf-idf and topic modeling features in the paradigm, and that CNN captures additional patterns from the weak supervision compared to the rule-based NLP algorithms. We also observe two drawbacks of the proposed paradigm that CNN is more sensitive to the size of training data, and that the proposed paradigm might not be effective for complex multiclass classification tasks. CONCLUSION: The proposed clinical text classification paradigm could reduce human efforts of labeled training data creation and feature engineering for applying machine learning to clinical text classification by leveraging weak supervision and deep representation. The experimental experiments have validated the effectiveness of paradigm by two institutional and one shared clinical text classification tasks.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition
Lecun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., & Haffner, P. (1998) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/5.726791 · Cited by 58,805
Mining electronic health records: towards better research applications and clinical care
Jensen, P. B., Jensen, L. J., & Brunak, S. (2012) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3208 · Cited by 1,680
PheWAS: demonstrating the feasibility of a phenome-wide scan to discover gene–disease associations
Denny, J. C., Ritchie, M. D., Basford, M. A., Pulley, J. M., Bastarache, L., Brown-Gentry, K., Wang, D., Masys, D. R., Roden, D. M., & Crawford, D. C. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq126 · Cited by 1,219
Deep Learning is Robust to Massive Label Noise
Rolnick, D., Veit, A., Belongie, S., & Shavit, N. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.10694 · Cited by 402
A comparison of word embeddings for the biomedical natural language processing
Wang, Y., Liu, S., Afzal, N., Rastegar-Mojarad, M., Wang, L., Shen, F., Kingsbury, P., & Liu, H. (2018) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2018.09.008 · Cited by 370
Self-citationConstrained deep weak supervision for histopathology image segmentation
Jia, Z., Huang, X., Chang, E. I.-C., & Xu, Y. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2017.2724070 · Cited by 242
Cited by
Synthetic data in machine learning for medicine and healthcare
Chen, R. J., Lu, M. Y., Chen, T. Y., Williamson, D. F. K., & Mahmood, F. (2021) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-021-00751-8 · Cited by 728
Patra, B. G., Sharma, M. M., Vekaria, V., Adekkanattu, P., Patterson, O. V., Glicksberg, B., Lepow, L. A., Ryu, E., Biernacka, J. M., Furmanchuk, A., et al. (2021) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocab170 · Cited by 248
Abdalrada, A. S., Abawajy, J., Al-Quraishi, T., & Islam, S. M. S. (2022) · Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders · doi:10.1007/s40200-021-00968-z · Cited by 78
Gupta, S., Belouali, A., Shah, N. J., Atkins, M. B., & Madhavan, S. (2021) · JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics · doi:10.1200/cci.20.00109 · Cited by 36
Staal, J., Hooftman, J., Gunput, S. T. G., Mamede, S., Frens, M. A., Van den Broek, W. W., Alsma, J., & Zwaan, L. (2022) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2022-014865 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, Y., Sohn, S., Liu, S., Shen, F., Wang, L., Atkinson, E. J., Amin, S., & Liu, H.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
- Published
- 2019-01-07
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-1
- ISSN
- 1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2927032858
- Cited by
- 405
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 19.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.