Family History Information Extraction With Neural Attention and an Enhanced Relation-Side Scheme: Algorithm Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identifying and extracting family history information (FHI) from clinical reports are significant for recognizing disease susceptibility. However, FHI is usually described in a narrative manner within patients' electronic health records, which requires the application of natural language processing technologies to automatically extract such information to provide more comprehensive patient-centered information to physicians. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to overcome the 2 main challenges observed in previous research focusing on FHI extraction. One is the requirement to develop postprocessing rules to infer the member and side information of family mentions. The other is to efficiently utilize intrasentence and intersentence information to assist FHI extraction. METHODS: We formulated the task as a sequential labeling problem and propose an enhanced relation-side scheme that encodes the required family member properties to not only eliminate the need for postprocessing rules but also relieve the insufficient training instance issues. Moreover, an attention-based neural network structure was proposed to exploit cross-sentence information to identify FHI and its attributes requiring cross-sentence inference. RESULTS: The dataset released by the 2019 n2c2/OHNLP family history extraction task was used to evaluate the performance of the proposed methods. We started by comparing the performance of the traditional neural sequence models with the ordinary scheme and enhanced scheme. Next, we studied the effectiveness of the proposed attention-enhanced neural networks by comparing their performance with that of the traditional networks. It was observed that, with the enhanced scheme, the recall of the neural network can be improved, leading to an increase in the F score of 0.024. The proposed neural attention mechanism enhanced both the recall and precision and resulted in an improved F score of 0.807, which was ranked fourth in the shared task. CONCLUSIONS: We presented an attention-based neural network along with an enhanced tag scheme that enables the neural network model to learn and interpret the implicit relationship and side information of the recognized family members across sentences without relying on heuristic rules.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".