MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094834348 · doi:10.2196/23375

The 2019 n2c2/OHNLP Track on Clinical Semantic Textual Similarity: Overview

2020· article· en· W3094834348 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yanshan Wang, Sunyang Fu, Feichen Shen, Sam Henry, Özlem Uzuner, Hongfang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesU.S. National Library of Medicine
KeywordsComputer scienceAutomatic summarizationNatural language processingInformation retrievalSemantic similarityArtificial intelligenceTask (project management)Unified Medical Language SystemSemantics (computer science)SentenceSimilarity (geometry)Set (abstract data type)Semantic computingSemantic Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Semantic textual similarity is a common task in the general English domain to assess the degree to which the underlying semantics of 2 text segments are equivalent to each other. Clinical Semantic Textual Similarity (ClinicalSTS) is the semantic textual similarity task in the clinical domain that attempts to measure the degree of semantic equivalence between 2 snippets of clinical text. Due to the frequent use of templates in the Electronic Health Record system, a large amount of redundant text exists in clinical notes, making ClinicalSTS crucial for the secondary use of clinical text in downstream clinical natural language processing applications, such as clinical text summarization, clinical semantics extraction, and clinical information retrieval. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to release ClinicalSTS data sets and to motivate natural language processing and biomedical informatics communities to tackle semantic text similarity tasks in the clinical domain. METHODS: We organized the first BioCreative/OHNLP ClinicalSTS shared task in 2018 by making available a real-world ClinicalSTS data set. We continued the shared task in 2019 in collaboration with National NLP Clinical Challenges (n2c2) and the Open Health Natural Language Processing (OHNLP) consortium and organized the 2019 n2c2/OHNLP ClinicalSTS track. We released a larger ClinicalSTS data set comprising 1642 clinical sentence pairs, including 1068 pairs from the 2018 shared task and 1006 new pairs from 2 electronic health record systems, GE and Epic. We released 80% (1642/2054) of the data to participating teams to develop and fine-tune the semantic textual similarity systems and used the remaining 20% (412/2054) as blind testing to evaluate their systems. The workshop was held in conjunction with the American Medical Informatics Association 2019 Annual Symposium. RESULTS: Of the 78 international teams that signed on to the n2c2/OHNLP ClinicalSTS shared task, 33 produced a total of 87 valid system submissions. The top 3 systems were generated by IBM Research, the National Center for Biotechnology Information, and the University of Florida, with Pearson correlations of r=.9010, r=.8967, and r=.8864, respectively. Most top-performing systems used state-of-the-art neural language models, such as BERT and XLNet, and state-of-the-art training schemas in deep learning, such as pretraining and fine-tuning schema, and multitask learning. Overall, the participating systems performed better on the Epic sentence pairs than on the GE sentence pairs, despite a much larger portion of the training data being GE sentence pairs. CONCLUSIONS: The 2019 n2c2/OHNLP ClinicalSTS shared task focused on computing semantic similarity for clinical text sentences generated from clinical notes in the real world. It attracted a large number of international teams. The ClinicalSTS shared task could continue to serve as a venue for researchers in natural language processing and medical informatics communities to develop and improve semantic textual similarity techniques for clinical text.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.016
Open science0.0100.019
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.036

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207