Lexicon Development for COVID-19-related Concepts Using Open-source Word Embedding Sources: An Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Scientists are developing new computational methods and prediction models to better clinically understand COVID-19 prevalence, treatment efficacy, and patient outcomes. These efforts could be improved by leveraging documented COVID-19-related symptoms, findings, and disorders from clinical text sources in an electronic health record. Word embeddings can identify terms related to these clinical concepts from both the biomedical and nonbiomedical domains, and are being shared with the open-source community at large. However, it's unclear how useful openly available word embeddings are for developing lexicons for COVID-19-related concepts. OBJECTIVE: Given an initial lexicon of COVID-19-related terms, this study aims to characterize the returned terms by similarity across various open-source word embeddings and determine common semantic and syntactic patterns between the COVID-19 queried terms and returned terms specific to the word embedding source. METHODS: We compared seven openly available word embedding sources. Using a series of COVID-19-related terms for associated symptoms, findings, and disorders, we conducted an interannotator agreement study to determine how accurately the most similar returned terms could be classified according to semantic types by three annotators. We conducted a qualitative study of COVID-19 queried terms and their returned terms to detect informative patterns for constructing lexicons. We demonstrated the utility of applying such learned synonyms to discharge summaries by reporting the proportion of patients identified by concept among three patient cohorts: pneumonia (n=6410), acute respiratory distress syndrome (n=8647), and COVID-19 (n=2397). RESULTS: We observed high pairwise interannotator agreement (Cohen kappa) for symptoms (0.86-0.99), findings (0.93-0.99), and disorders (0.93-0.99). Word embedding sources generated based on characters tend to return more synonyms (mean count of 7.2 synonyms) compared to token-based embedding sources (mean counts range from 2.0 to 3.4). Word embedding sources queried using a qualifier term (eg, dry cough or muscle pain) more often returned qualifiers of the similar semantic type (eg, "dry" returns consistency qualifiers like "wet" and "runny") compared to a single term (eg, cough or pain) queries. A higher proportion of patients had documented fever (0.61-0.84), cough (0.41-0.55), shortness of breath (0.40-0.59), and hypoxia (0.51-0.56) retrieved than other clinical features. Terms for dry cough returned a higher proportion of patients with COVID-19 (0.07) than the pneumonia (0.05) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (0.03) populations. CONCLUSIONS: Word embeddings are valuable technology for learning related terms, including synonyms. When leveraging openly available word embedding sources, choices made for the construction of the word embeddings can significantly influence the words learned.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».