Crowdsourcing for Machine Learning in Public Health Surveillance: Lessons Learned From Amazon Mechanical Turk
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Crowdsourcing services, such as Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT), allow researchers to use the collective intelligence of a wide range of web users for labor-intensive tasks. As the manual verification of the quality of the collected results is difficult because of the large volume of data and the quick turnaround time of the process, many questions remain to be explored regarding the reliability of these resources for developing digital public health systems. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore and evaluate the application of crowdsourcing, generally, and AMT, specifically, for developing digital public health surveillance systems. METHODS: We collected 296,166 crowd-generated labels for 98,722 tweets, labeled by 610 AMT workers, to develop machine learning (ML) models for detecting behaviors related to physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep quality among Twitter users. To infer the ground truth labels and explore the quality of these labels, we studied 4 statistical consensus methods that are agnostic of task features and only focus on worker labeling behavior. Moreover, to model the meta-information associated with each labeling task and leverage the potential of context-sensitive data in the truth inference process, we developed 7 ML models, including traditional classifiers (offline and active), a deep learning-based classification model, and a hybrid convolutional neural network model. RESULTS: Although most crowdsourcing-based studies in public health have often equated majority vote with quality, the results of our study using a truth set of 9000 manually labeled tweets showed that consensus-based inference models mask underlying uncertainty in data and overlook the importance of task meta-information. Our evaluations across 3 physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep quality data sets showed that truth inference is a context-sensitive process, and none of the methods studied in this paper were consistently superior to others in predicting the truth label. We also found that the performance of the ML models trained on crowd-labeled data was sensitive to the quality of these labels, and poor-quality labels led to incorrect assessment of these models. Finally, we have provided a set of practical recommendations to improve the quality and reliability of crowdsourced data. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate the importance of the quality of crowd-generated labels in developing ML models designed for decision-making purposes, such as public health surveillance decisions. A combination of inference models outlined and analyzed in this study could be used to quantitatively measure and improve the quality of crowd-generated labels for training ML models.
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 | 0,025 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| 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 ».