Learning regular expressions for clinical text classification
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Natural language processing (NLP) applications typically use regular expressions that have been developed manually by human experts. Our goal is to automate both the creation and utilization of regular expressions in text classification. METHODS: We designed a novel regular expression discovery (RED) algorithm and implemented two text classifiers based on RED. The RED+ALIGN classifier combines RED with an alignment algorithm, and RED+SVM combines RED with a support vector machine (SVM) classifier. Two clinical datasets were used for testing and evaluation: the SMOKE dataset, containing 1091 text snippets describing smoking status; and the PAIN dataset, containing 702 snippets describing pain status. We performed 10-fold cross-validation to calculate accuracy, precision, recall, and F-measure metrics. In the evaluation, an SVM classifier was trained as the control. RESULTS: The two RED classifiers achieved 80.9-83.0% in overall accuracy on the two datasets, which is 1.3-3% higher than SVM's accuracy (p<0.001). Similarly, small but consistent improvements have been observed in precision, recall, and F-measure when RED classifiers are compared with SVM alone. More significantly, RED+ALIGN correctly classified many instances that were misclassified by the SVM classifier (8.1-10.3% of the total instances and 43.8-53.0% of SVM's misclassifications). CONCLUSIONS: Machine-generated regular expressions can be effectively used in clinical text classification. The regular expression-based classifier can be combined with other classifiers, like SVM, to improve classification performance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it