Parameter-Efficient Methods for Metastases Detection fromClinical Notes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the progression of cancer is crucial for defining treatments for patients. The objective of this study is to automate the detection of metastatic liver disease from free-style computed tomography (CT) radiology reports. Our research demonstrates that transferring knowledge using three approaches can improve model performance. First, we utilize generic language models (LMs), pretrained in a self-supervised manner. Second, we use a semi-supervised approach to train our model by automatically annotating a large unlabeled dataset; this approach substantially enhances the model’s performance. Finally, we transfer knowledge from related tasks by designing a multi-task transfer learning methodology. We leverage the recent advancement of parameter-efficient LM adaptation strategies to improve performance and training efficiency. Our dataset consists of CT reports collected at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) over the course of 12 years. 2,641 reports were manually annotated by domain experts; among them, 841 reports have been annotated for the presence of liver metastases. Our best model achieved an F1-score of 73.8%, a precision of 84%, and a recall of 65.8%.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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".