MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066207574 · doi:10.1109/memb.2007.335581

Multilabel associative classification categorization of MEDLINE aticles into MeSH keywords

2007· article· en· W2066207574 on OpenAlexaff
Rafał Rak, Lukasz Kurgan, Marek Reformat

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCategorizationClassifier (UML)Associative propertyDocument classificationData miningMacroScalabilityArtificial intelligenceInformation retrievalPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningDatabaseMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The specific characteristic of classification of medical documents from the MEDLINE database is that each document is assigned to more than one category, which requires a system for multilabel classification. Another major challenge was to develop a scalable method capable of dealing with hundreds of thousand of documents. We proposed a novel system for automated classification of MEDLINE documents to MeSH keywords based on the recently developed data mining algorithm called ACRI, which was modified to accommodate multilabel classification. Five different classification configurations in conjunction with different methods of measuring classification quality were proposed and tested. The extensive experimental comparison showed superiority of methods based on reoccurrence of words in an article over nonrecurrent-based associative classification. The achieved relatively high value of macro F1 (46%) demonstrates the high quality of the proposed system for this challenging dataset. Accuracy of the proposed classifier, defined as the ratio of the sum of TP and TN examples to the total number of examples, reached 90%. Three scenarios were proposed based on the performed tests and different possible objectives. If a goal is to classify the largest number of documents, a configuration that maximizes micro F1 should be chosen. On the other hand, if a system is to work well for categories with a small number of documents, a configuration that maximizes macro F1 is more suitable. A tradeoff can be obtained by using a configuration that optimizes the average between macro and micro F1.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology MagazineSame topicText and Document Classification TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207