MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982424689 · doi:10.1016/j.yjbinx.2019.100057

A survey of word embeddings for clinical text

2019· review· en· W2982424689 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Informatics · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWord (group theory)Computer scienceBlueprintNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceInformation retrievalData scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Representing words as numerical vectors based on the contexts in which they appear has become the de facto method of analyzing text with machine learning. In this paper, we provide a guide for training these representations on clinical text data, using a survey of relevant research. Specifically, we discuss different types of word representations, clinical text corpora, available pre-trained clinical word vector embeddings, intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation, applications, and limitations of these approaches. This work can be used as a blueprint for clinicians and healthcare workers who may want to incorporate clinical text features in their own models and applications.

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.201 · 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