Comparative analysis of machine learning algorithms for computer-assisted reporting based on fully automated cross-lingual RadLex mappings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer-assisted reporting (CAR) tools were suggested to improve radiology report quality by context-sensitively recommending key imaging biomarkers. However, studies evaluating machine learning (ML) algorithms on cross-lingual ontological (RadLex) mappings for developing embedded CAR algorithms are lacking. Therefore, we compared ML algorithms developed on human expert-annotated features against those developed on fully automated cross-lingual (German to English) RadLex mappings using 206 CT reports of suspected stroke. Target label was whether the Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score (ASPECTS) should have been provided (yes/no:154/52). We focused on probabilistic outputs of ML-algorithms including tree-based methods, elastic net, support vector machines (SVMs) and fastText (linear classifier), which were evaluated in the same 5 × fivefold nested cross-validation framework. This allowed for model stacking and classifier rankings. Performance was evaluated using calibration metrics (AUC, brier score, log loss) and -plots. Contextual ML-based assistance recommending ASPECTS was feasible. SVMs showed the highest accuracies both on human-extracted- (87%) and RadLex features (findings:82.5%; impressions:85.4%). FastText achieved the highest accuracy (89.3%) and AUC (92%) on impressions. Boosted trees fitted on findings had the best calibration profile. Our approach provides guidance for choosing ML classifiers for CAR tools in fully automated and language-agnostic fashion using bag-of-RadLex terms on limited expert-labelled training data.
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 | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".