Integrating image data into biomedical text categorization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Categorization of biomedical articles is a central task for supporting various curation efforts. It can also form the basis for effective biomedical text mining. Automatic text classification in the biomedical domain is thus an active research area. Contests organized by the KDD Cup (2002) and the TREC Genomics track (since 2003) defined several annotation tasks that involved document classification, and provided training and test data sets. So far, these efforts focused on analyzing only the text content of documents. However, as was noted in the KDD'02 text mining contest-where figure-captions proved to be an invaluable feature for identifying documents of interest-images often provide curators with critical information. We examine the possibility of using information derived directly from image data, and of integrating it with text-based classification, for biomedical document categorization. We present a method for obtaining features from images and for using them-both alone and in combination with text-to perform the triage task introduced in the TREC Genomics track 2004. The task was to determine which documents are relevant to a given annotation task performed by the Mouse Genome Database curators. We show preliminary results, demonstrating that the method has a strong potential to enhance and complement traditional text-based categorization 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".