MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044693911 · doi:10.1017/s1351324920000509

Comparison of rule-based and neural network models for negation detection in radiology reports

2020· article· en· W3044693911 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

VenueNatural Language Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingNegationArtificial neural networkSentenceSyntaxPipeline (software)Machine learningRule-based systemPython (programming language)Information retrievalProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using natural language processing, it is possible to extract structured information from raw text in the electronic health record (EHR) at reasonably high accuracy. However, the accurate distinction between negated and non-negated mentions of clinical terms remains a challenge. EHR text includes cases where diseases are stated not to be present or only hypothesised, meaning a disease can be mentioned in a report when it is not being reported as present. This makes tasks such as document classification and summarisation more difficult. We have developed the rule-based EdIE-R-Neg, part of an existing text mining pipeline called EdIE-R (Edinburgh Information Extraction for Radiology reports), developed to process brain imaging reports, ( https://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/software/edie-r/ ) and two machine learning approaches; one using a bidirectional long short-term memory network and another using a feedforward neural network. These were developed on data from the Edinburgh Stroke Study (ESS) and tested on data from routine reports from NHS Tayside (Tayside). Both datasets consist of written reports from medical scans. These models are compared with two existing rule-based models: pyConText (Harkema et al . 2009. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 42 (5), 839–851), a python implementation of a generalisation of NegEx, and NegBio (Peng et al . 2017. NegBio: A high-performance tool for negation and uncertainty detection in radiology reports. arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1712.05898 ), which identifies negation scopes through patterns applied to a syntactic representation of the sentence. On both the test set of the dataset from which our models were developed, as well as the largely similar Tayside test set, the neural network models and our custom-built rule-based system outperformed the existing methods. EdIE-R-Neg scored highest on F1 score, particularly on the test set of the Tayside dataset, from which no development data were used in these experiments, showing the power of custom-built rule-based systems for negation detection on datasets of this size. The performance gap of the machine learning models to EdIE-R-Neg on the Tayside test set was reduced through adding development Tayside data into the ESS training set, demonstrating the adaptability of the neural network models.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.233 · 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