Exploratory Analysis of Methods for Automated Classification of Laboratory Test Orders into Syndromic Groups in Veterinary Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent focus on earlier detection of pathogen introduction in human and animal populations has led to the development of surveillance systems based on automated monitoring of health data. Real- or near real-time monitoring of pre-diagnostic data requires automated classification of records into syndromes--syndromic surveillance--using algorithms that incorporate medical knowledge in a reliable and efficient way, while remaining comprehensible to end users. METHODS: This paper describes the application of two of machine learning (Naïve Bayes and Decision Trees) and rule-based methods to extract syndromic information from laboratory test requests submitted to a veterinary diagnostic laboratory. RESULTS: High performance (F1-macro = 0.9995) was achieved through the use of a rule-based syndrome classifier, based on rule induction followed by manual modification during the construction phase, which also resulted in clear interpretability of the resulting classification process. An unmodified rule induction algorithm achieved an F(1-micro) score of 0.979 though this fell to 0.677 when performance for individual classes was averaged in an unweighted manner (F(1-macro)), due to the fact that the algorithm failed to learn 3 of the 16 classes from the training set. Decision Trees showed equal interpretability to the rule-based approaches, but achieved an F(1-micro) score of 0.923 (falling to 0.311 when classes are given equal weight). A Naïve Bayes classifier learned all classes and achieved high performance (F(1-micro)= 0.994 and F(1-macro) = .955), however the classification process is not transparent to the domain experts. CONCLUSION: The use of a manually customised rule set allowed for the development of a system for classification of laboratory tests into syndromic groups with very high performance, and high interpretability by the domain experts. Further research is required to develop internal validation rules in order to establish automated methods to update model rules without user input.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".