MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311672989 · doi:10.1186/s12883-022-02938-1

Informing the development of an outcome set and banks of items to measure mobility among individuals with acquired brain injury using natural language processing

2022· article· en· W4311672989 on OpenAlexaff
Rehab Alhasani, Mathieu Godbout, Audrey Durand, Claudine Auger, Anouk Lamontagne, Sara Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsCentre de réadaptation Lethbridge-Layton-MackayMcGill University Health CentreCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalJewish Rehabilitation HospitalMcGill UniversityCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Natural language processingUnified Medical Language SystemInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceSentenceCluster analysisOntologyMachine learningData miningLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The sheer number of measures evaluating mobility and inconsistencies in terminology make it challenging to extract potential core domains and items. Automating a portion of the data synthesis would allow us to cover a much larger volume of studies and databases in a smaller fraction of the time compared to the usual process. Thus, the objective of this study was to identify a comprehensive outcome set and develop preliminary banks of items of mobility among individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI) using Natural Language Processing (NLP). METHODS: An umbrella review of 47 reviews evaluating the content of mobility measures among individuals with ABI was conducted. A search was performed on 5 databases between 2000 and 2020. Two independent reviewers retrieved copies of the measures and extracted mobility domains and items. A pre-trained BERT model (state-of-the-art model for NLP) provided vector representations for each sentence. Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Framework (ICF) ontology as a guide for clustering, a k-means algorithm was used to retrieve clusters of similar sentences from their embeddings. The resulting embedding clusters were evaluated using the Silhouette score and fine-tuned according to expert input. RESULTS: The study identified 246 mobility measures, including 474 domains and 2109 items. Encoding the clusters using the ICF ontology and expert knowledge helped in regrouping the items in a way that is more closely related to mobility terminology. Our best results identified banks of items that were used to create a 24 comprehensive outcome sets of mobility, including Upper Extremity Mobility, Emotional Function, Balance, Motor Control, Self-care, Social Life and Relationships, Cognition, Walking, Postural Transition, Recreation, and Leisure Activities, Activities of Daily Living, Physical Functioning, Communication, Work/Study, Climbing, Sensory Functions, General Health, Fatigue, Functional Independence, Pain, Alcohol and Drugs Use, Transportation, Sleeping, and Finances. CONCLUSION: The banks of items of mobility domains represent a first step toward establishing a comprehensive outcome set and a common language of mobility to develop the ontology. It enables researchers and healthcare professionals to begin exposing the content of mobility measures as a way to assess mobility comprehensively.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.149
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.149
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NeurologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207