Classifying lymphoma and tuberculosis case reports using machine learning algorithms
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Available literature reports several lymphoma cases misdiagnosed as tuberculosis, especially in countries with a heavy TB burden. This frequent misdiagnosis is due to the fact that the two diseases can present with similar symptoms. The present study therefore aims to analyse and explore TB as well as lymphoma case reports using Natural Language Processing tools and evaluate the use of machine learning to differentiate between the two diseases. As a starting point in the study, case reports were collected for each disease using web scraping. Natural language processing tools and text clustering were then used to explore the created dataset. Finally, six machine learning algorithms were trained and tested on the collected data, which contained 765 lymphoma and 546 tuberculosis case reports. Each method was evaluated using various performance metrics. The results indicated that the multi-layer perceptron model achieved the best accuracy (93.1%), recall (91.9%) and precision score (93.7%), thus outperforming other algorithms in terms of correctly classifying the different case 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it