Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms for Computer-Assisted Reporting Based on Fully Automated Cross-Lingual RadLex® Mappings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Studies evaluating machine learning (ML) algorithms on cross-lingual RadLex® mappings for developing context-sensitive radiological reporting tools are lacking. Therefore, we investigated whether ML-based approaches can be utilized to assist radiologists in providing key imaging biomarkers – such as The Alberta stroke programme early CT score (APECTS). Material and Methods: A stratified random sample (age, gender, year) of CT reports (n=206) with suspected ischemic stroke was generated out of 3997 reports signed off between 2015-2019. Three independent, blinded readers assessed these reports and manually annotated clinico-radiologically relevant key features. The primary outcome was whether ASPECTS should have been provided (yes/no: 154/52). For all reports, both the findings and impressions underwent cross-lingual (German to English) RadLex®-mappings using natural language processing. Well-established ML-algorithms including classification trees, random forests, elastic net, support vector machines (SVMs) and boosted trees were evaluated in a 5 x 5-fold nested cross-validation framework. Further, a linear classifier (fastText) was directly fitted on the German reports. Ensemble learning was used to provide robust importance rankings of these ML-algorithms. Performance was evaluated using derivates of the confusion matrix and metrics of calibration including AUC, brier score and log loss as well as visually by calibration plots. Results: On this imbalanced classification task SVMs showed the highest accuracies both on human-extracted- (87%) and fully automated RadLex® features (findings: 82.5%; impressions: 85.4%). FastText without pre-trained language model showed the highest accuracy (89.3%) and AUC (92%) on the impressions. Ensemble learner revealed that boosted trees, fastText and SVMs are the most important ML-classifiers. Boosted trees fitted on the findings showed the best overall calibration curve. Conclusions: Contextual ML-based assistance suggesting ASPECTS while reporting neuroradiological emergencies is feasible, even if ML-models are restricted to be developed on limited and highly imbalanced data sets.
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 | 0.021 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".