MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057663593 · doi:10.1109/bibm.2013.6732511

Patient information extraction in noisy tele-health texts

2013· article· en· W2057663593 on OpenAlexaff
Miyoung Kim, Ying Xu, Osmar R. Zai͏̈ane, Randy Goebel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNoise (video)Natural language processingSpellingNoise reductionSpeech recognitionInformation retrievalSentenceArtificial intelligenceInformation extractionLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore methods for effectively extracting information from clinical narratives, which are captured in a public health consulting phone service called HealthLink. The currently available data consists of dialogues constructed by nurses while consulting patients on the phone. Since the data are interviews transcribed by nurses during phone conversations, they include a significant volume and variety of noise: First is explicit noise, which includes spelling errors, unfinished sentences, omission of sentence delimiters, variants of terms, etc. Second is implicit noise, which includes non-patient's information and negation of patient's information. To filter explicit noise, we propose our biomedical term detection/normalization method: it resolves misspelling, term variations, and arbitrary abbreviation of terms by nurses. In detecting temporal terms and other types of named entities (which show patients' personal information such as age, and sex), we propose a bootstrapping-based pattern learning to detect all kinds of arbitrary variations of the named entities. To address implicit noise, we propose a dependency path-based filtering method. The result of our denoising is the extraction of normalized patient information. The experimental results show that we achieve reasonable performance with our noise reduction methods.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207