MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111411783 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v5i5.1637

Deep Learning and NLP For Knowledge Extraction from Laboratory Reports

2020· article· en· W3111411783 on OpenAlexaffabout
Branson Chen, Elham Dolatabadi, Jeffrey C. Kwong, Mahmoud Azimaee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceIdentifierNatural language processingNamed-entity recognitionParsingInformation extractionInformation retrievalF1 scoreDeep learningIdentification (biology)ENCODETask (project management)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionDue to the ever-growing volume and complexity of clinical data, it has become a tedious task to extract information from data for secondary uses such as decision support, quality assurance, and outcome analysis. Recently, there have been great advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) approaches that automate knowledge extraction from clinical reports in order to save costs and improve efficiency. Objectives/Approach​Our goal is the development of an NLP tool designed to automatically extract and encode clinical information from laboratory reports. This study describes and evaluates our NLP tool on provincial repositories of laboratory tests and results called Ontario Laboratory Information System (OLIS). OLIS is an electronic system that covers >200 labs and stores patients’ current and past test results as patients move through different areas of the healthcare system. Our NLP tool is a modular system of pipelined components including Named Entity Recognition module for extracting mentions of virus and test mentions and inference to combine extracted entities into a meaningful outcome. Results​Initial analyses were conducted on a segment of OLIS related to laboratory tests for respiratory viruses. This data included over a million observations corresponding to ~100 Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC), with >40,000 unique strings. The clinical text was cleaned, tokenized, and parsed using an in-house text algorithm that was continually refined with manual review from clinical experts. This data was then encoded as virus and test types to be used as a ground truth. The NLP tool was built on ground truth data and achieved an accuracy greater than 95%. Conclusion/ImplicationsApproaches like these can be applied to many areas of health research that make use of clinical reports. Our methods, when optimized and validated, can be deployed into clinical systems to provide on-the-spot analysis of various laboratory reports.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207