À la Recherche du Temps Perdu: extracting temporal relations from medical text in the 2012 i2b2 NLP challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: An analysis of the timing of events is critical for a deeper understanding of the course of events within a patient record. The 2012 i2b2 NLP challenge focused on the extraction of temporal relationships between concepts within textual hospital discharge summaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The team from the National Research Council Canada (NRC) submitted three system runs to the second track of the challenge: typifying the time-relationship between pre-annotated entities. The NRC system was designed around four specialist modules containing statistical machine learning classifiers. Each specialist targeted distinct sets of relationships: local relationships, 'sectime'-type relationships, non-local overlap-type relationships, and non-local causal relationships. RESULTS: The best NRC submission achieved a precision of 0.7499, a recall of 0.6431, and an F1 score of 0.6924, resulting in a statistical tie for first place. Post hoc improvements led to a precision of 0.7537, a recall of 0.6455, and an F1 score of 0.6954, giving the highest scores reported on this task to date. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Methods for general relation extraction extended well to temporal relations, and gave top-ranked state-of-the-art results. Careful ordering of predictions within result sets proved critical to this success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".