Machine-learned solutions for three stages of clinical information extraction: the state of the art at i2b2 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As clinical text mining continues to mature, its potential as an enabling technology for innovations in patient care and clinical research is becoming a reality. A critical part of that process is rigid benchmark testing of natural language processing methods on realistic clinical narrative. In this paper, the authors describe the design and performance of three state-of-the-art text-mining applications from the National Research Council of Canada on evaluations within the 2010 i2b2 challenge. DESIGN: The three systems perform three key steps in clinical information extraction: (1) extraction of medical problems, tests, and treatments, from discharge summaries and progress notes; (2) classification of assertions made on the medical problems; (3) classification of relations between medical concepts. Machine learning systems performed these tasks using large-dimensional bags of features, as derived from both the text itself and from external sources: UMLS, cTAKES, and Medline. MEASUREMENTS: Performance was measured per subtask, using micro-averaged F-scores, as calculated by comparing system annotations with ground-truth annotations on a test set. RESULTS: The systems ranked high among all submitted systems in the competition, with the following F-scores: concept extraction 0.8523 (ranked first); assertion detection 0.9362 (ranked first); relationship detection 0.7313 (ranked second). CONCLUSION: For all tasks, we found that the introduction of a wide range of features was crucial to success. Importantly, our choice of machine learning algorithms allowed us to be versatile in our feature design, and to introduce a large number of features without overfitting and without encountering computing-resource bottlenecks.
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 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".