The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Assessment of contextualised representations in detecting outcome phrases in clinical trials
Open accessAbstract
Automating the recognition of outcomes reported in clinical trials using machine learning has a huge potential of speeding up access to evidence necessary in healthcare decision-making. Prior research has however acknowledged inadequate training corpora as a challenge for the Outcome detection (OD) task. Additionally, several contextualized representations like BERT and ELMO have achieved unparalleled success in detecting various diseases, genes, proteins, and chemicals, however, the same cannot be emphatically stated for outcomes, because these models have been relatively under-tested and studied for the OD task. We introduce "EBM-COMET", a dataset in which 300 PubMed abstracts are expertly annotated for clinical outcomes. Unlike prior related datasets that use arbitrary outcome classifications, we use labels from a taxonomy recently published to standardize outcome classifications. To extract outcomes, we fine-tune a variety of pre-trained contextualized representations, additionally, we use frozen contextualized and context-independent representations in our custom neural model augmented with clinically informed Part-Of-Speech embeddings and a cost-sensitive loss function. We adopt strict evaluation for the trained models by rewarding them for correctly identifying full outcome phrases rather than words within the entities i.e. given an outcome "systolic blood pressure", the models are rewarded a classification score only when they predict all 3 words in sequence, otherwise, they are not rewarded. We observe our best model (BioBERT) achieve 81.5\% F1, 81.3\% sensitivity and 98.0\% specificity. We reach a consensus on which contextualized representations are best suited for detecting outcomes from clinical-trial abstracts. Furthermore, our best model outperforms scores published on the original EBM-NLP dataset leader-board scores.
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.
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?
Comparability between models might be further decreased by comparing results between publications that use relaxed vs. strict evaluation approaches for token-based evaluation, or publications that use the same dataset but with different random seeds to split training and testing data.
“Comparability between models might be further decreased by comparing results between publications that use relaxed vs. strict evaluation approaches for token-based evaluation, 34 or publications that use the same dataset but with different random seeds to split training and testing data. 33 , 118”
From Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: a living systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [34]
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
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: a living systematic review
Schmidt, L., Olorisade, B. K., McGuinness, L. A., Thomas, J., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2021) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.51117.1 · Cited by 106
AlpaPICO: Extraction of PICO frames from clinical trial documents using LLMs.
Ghosh, M., Mukherjee, S., Ganguly, A., Basuchowdhuri, P., Naskar, S. K., & Ganguly, D. (2024) · Methods · doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2024.04.005 · Cited by 27
Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review
Schmidt, L., Finnerty Mutlu, A. N., Elmore, R., Olorisade, B. K., Thomas, J., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2025) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.51117.3 · Cited by 27
Witte, C., Schmidt, D. M., & Cimiano, P. (2024) · Journal of Biomedical Semantics · doi:10.1186/s13326-024-00305-2 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Abaho, M., Bollegala, D., Williamson, P. R., & Dodd, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2203.03547
- OpenAlex
- W4220927233
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- clinical trials, clinical trial abstracts, context representation, BERT, BioBERT
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